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> Under regional FTAs like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) far fewer countries are involved compared to multilateral trade negotiations like the Doha Round. The potential trade-offs in negotiations are more manageable and participant states may be more likely to make offers and examine concessions. But apart from this possible advantage the TPP process has many downsides and is undermining successful multilateral free trade. Stronger countries often ‘divert’ trade from cheaper non-member sources to more expensive member sources bringing harm rather than good. Also the enormous growth of such FTAs now more than 350 and still growing has led to a systemic effect: creating a ‘spaghetti bowl’ of preferences and chaos in the world trading system … The American doctrine of inducing multilateral trade liberalisation by signing on FTAs has proven to be a chimera’. For example to liberalise agricultural trade both production subsidies and export subsidies need to be eliminated. The Hong Kong Declaration in 2005 set out an agreement to abolish export subsidies. But to get rid of production subsidies a multilateral agreement (through the Doha Round) and not a bilateral one is absolutely critical. This is because unlike with export subsidies it is technically impossible to reduce or relax a production subsidy so that it applies bilaterally to only one country. Under a regional agreement like the TPP this problem is only slightly reduced because there are still not enough countries to effectively reduce production subsidies. The Republicans in Congress are now fiercely committed to protecting US agriculture. Their continued control of the US House of Representatives will make it more difficult to reach an agricultural deal under the TPP. US business lobbies also have little interest in liberalising agriculture — they want concessions in manufacturing and services. Although it is not yet clear whether these can be achieved either they certainly cannot be done with Doha. Many aspects of the TPP reflect the demands of US business lobbies and are actually calculated to reduce the openness of the trade system for new members. Smaller countries like Vietnam and Singapore are therefore being pressured to have ‘WTO Plus’ kinds of copyright protection. The same problem occurs with respect to labour standards under the TPP. India could never agree to these aspects. Membership of the TPP should be open to countries willing to make trade concessions and members should not be required to sign onto all of the TPP’s provisions. For example countries should be allowed to sign onto the ‘WTO Plus’ rules on intellectual property or sign onto different labour standards but meeting the demands made by US lobbyists should not be a pre-condition to joining the TPP. ASEAN+1 and ASEAN+3 which preceded ASEAN+6 deliberately excluded the United States. But China’s aggressiveness on the external front pushed smaller Asian countries such as Vietnam Malaysia and Singapore to support the TPP. The TPP thus became the United States’ way of getting back into the Asian region. Yet US policy — wittingly or unwittingly — is moving to fragment Asia in the same way that it fragmented South America. This is where the ASEAN+6 grouping could play a role by demonstrating to the United States that it is welcome but only within a genuine trade grouping. ASEAN+6’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) can only work if it is stripped of trade-unrelated demands but it presents an alternative to the TPP one where other countries — even countries such as Canada and France — could be included. If ASEAN+6 has India and China joining it they can present the RCEP as a template where no comparable side conditions will apply. However this may mean that the United States will not join it. Finally the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms being advocated as part of the TPP will invariably involve surrendering some sovereignty in order to gain other benefits. This is the case when a country joins any international agreement. The problem with the TPP dispute settlement mechanisms is that there is already an incredibly successful and wide-reaching dispute settlement mechanism at the WTO a multilateral institution. But regional agreements like the TPP and bilateral agreements automatically generate more dispute settlements and so-called arbitration within those groups. The bigger powers within those groupings such as the United States or the European Union have greater clout and will therefore have more influence over those arbitration panels and their outcomes and that will in turn eventually undermine the WTO dispute settlement process. The WTO multilateral trade system and WTO dispute settlement system are likely to be undermined by the TPP. Smaller powers have to ensure that the WTO dispute system remains paramount. Unless these complexities are better understood they are going to miss the boat on better multilateral free trade. </source> [/INST] <claim>Success in the TPP will collapse Doha and destroy multilateral trade</claim> <psg>Under regional FTAs like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) far fewer countries are involved compared to multilateral trade negotiations like the Doha Round. the TPP process has many downsides and is undermining successful multilateral free trade. Stronger countries often ‘divert’ trade from cheaper non-member sources to more expensive member sources bringing harm rather than good. the enormous growth of such FTAs now more than 350 and still growing has led to a systemic effect: creating a ‘spaghetti bowl’ of preferences and chaos in the world trading system Yet US policy is moving to fragment Asia in the same way that it fragmented South America. Finally the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms The problem with the TPP dispute settlement mechanisms is that there is already an incredibly successful and wide-reaching dispute settlement mechanism at the WTO a multilateral institution TPP generate more dispute settlements and so-called arbitration within those groups. The bigger powers within those groupings such as the United States have greater clout and will therefore have more influence over those arbitration panels and their outcomes and that will in turn eventually undermine the WTO dispute settlement process. The WTO multilateral trade system and WTO dispute settlement system are likely to be undermined by 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> First four of the seven TPP negotiators—the most important export markets for the United States in the group— already have bilateral free trade agreements (FTA) with the United States. And as Table 1 shows the non-FTA partners (Brunei New Zealand and Vietnam) are not currently big markets for U.S. exporters: Vietnam—the most important of them—ranked 50th. Of course one could argue that high trade barriers might be behind the poor performance and that the TPP would thus improve U.S. standings in those countries. But the non-FTA markets are small. Even the generally protrade Peterson Institute for International Economics in a submission to the USTR in January in support of the TPP admits that “the U.S. payoff … depends on extending the TPP to other major economies of the Asia-Pacific region.”5 Second the potential to fully realize gains from free trade with the remaining TPP partners with which the United States does not already have an FTA is questionable. For example they all present political problems. Although not necessarily a serious irritant especially under the new administration New Zealand’s long-standing refusal to admit nuclear-powered ships into its harbors or join the Iraq war effort was seen as an obstacle to a previously proposed bilateral trade deal.6 Human-rights concerns in Vietnam and Brunei are in the sights of trade skeptics.7 Third and assuming the political obstacles can be overcome the gains to American consumers from lowering tariffs on imports from the non-FTA TPP partners are by no means certain. Brunei for example exports mainly oil and petroleum products which accounted for more than 96 percent of its total exports in 2008.8 The U.S. tariff on petroleum products is relatively low and Brunei is not a significant source of oil for the United States. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission the United States did not import any oil or related products from Brunei in 2009. indeed total imports of all products from Brunei in 2009 came to just $41.6 million.9 The ability of American consumers to benefit from lower prices and greater product variety is by no means assured especially compared to the benefits offered by other bigger deals that the administration could promote. Vietnam provides an instructive example of the significant distance between potential and success. While Vietnam has potential to be an important export market for U.S. businesses because of its rapid growth and anticipated future need for high value-added imports of goods and services its experience with United States trade politics does not augur well for a truly liberalizing agreement this time around. Two of its main export products shrimp and catfish are subject to extra tariffs under U.S. “unfair trade” laws. Separate to the TPP negotiations news reports indicate that ongoing skirmishes over catfish inspections continue to complicate the trading relationship and threaten to spill over into U.S. beef exports to Vietnam.10 Textile and apparel imports which would offer significant benefits to American consumers if they were allowed to come in freely are politically sensitive and would likely be subject to long phase-ins and carve-outs if they are covered at all. Indeed the U.S. textile lobby successfully convinced the Bush administration to subject Vietnamese textiles to formal monitoring by the U.S. Department of Commerce when Vietnam joined the WTO in 2007 and has called for textiles to be excluded from the TPP negotiations.11 Negotiators can expect strong lobbying efforts from special interests eager to protect their turf. Similarly the bruising experience with the sugar lobby during the negotiations for the FTA with Australia serves as a warning for those that hope a TPP might through freer trade with New Zealand bring U.S. consumers long-overdue access to competitive dairy products. Dairy would likely be subject to significant carve-outs and delayed liberalization especially if as Ambassador Kirk threatens members of Congress are intimately involved with proceedings. Hopes that a TPP would yield an opportunity to reopen the sugar provisions of the FTA with Australia look equally dashed. The Office of the USTR has already hinted that sugar would not be on the table for further liberalization even though it would bring significant gains for U.S. consumers.12 An Unconvincing Sales Pitch The language the administration used to promote the deal should give cause for concern to every proponent of genuinely liberalizing trade agreements. First but not unusually this deal was pitched overwhelmingly in terms of its potential to increase exports thus reinforcing the damaging myth that promoting exports is the true end of trade policy and imports are at best a necessary evil. This is a recurrent theme with the Obama administration which in its recently-released 2010 trade policy agenda mentioned imports only 5 times.13 During his appearance at the 2010 USDA Outlook Forum—an event that partly aims to talk up agriculture one of America’s key export sectors—Ambassador Kirk said that members of Congress “are more open and receptive” to the idea of creating a trans-Pacific agreement because they could start the agreement from scratch.14 Congress in other words would be free to insert potentially deal-breaking labor and environmental standards and generally assert their will. That is not good news. As a general matter members of Congress take a more parochial view of trade agreements than do administrations being naturally concerned about the effect of any trade deal on politically powerful constituents rather than the national interest. Deferring to the current Congress in particular is unlikely to lead to more tradefriendly agreements: most of the Democratic majority has signed on to a bill sponsored by Rep. Michael Michaud (DME) that calls for a new trade policy that includes a long list of environmental labor investment and consumer protection standards.15 Although the bill has little chance of becoming law support for it demonstrates the extent of trade skepticism in the 111th Congress. A newly introduced bill that would withdraw the United States from NAFTA is a similar indication of congressional mood. Far from upgrading trade agreements to “platinum” status as some commentators have insisted that they would adding extraneous social and intellectual property standards may tarnish the sheen of otherwise promising opportunities to expand economic liberty. That assumes of course that the inclusion of such standards and conditions does not preclude a deal entirely: developing countries strongly resist such standards as a rule and it’s likely that even the bilateral agreements within the TPP would need to be renegotiated to fit the new administration’s vision. In a truly disappointing display of political timidity Ambassador Kirk gave depressing reasons for why the administration sees the TPP as higher priority than other agreements that have already been signed. Negotiations would he said be less of a political burden for Congress because they would likely take 18 to 24 months to develop and the agreement would not come up in Congress for approval until after the 2010 elections. Congress he said would look on these features favorably.16 That should worry our TPP partners. When the main ambassador for U.S. trade is selling the slow pace and likely complications as a feature of the agreement rather than a bug you know to put the champagne back on ice. All of this calls into question the administration’s true commitment to freer trade. Why for example given their insistence about the importance of the Asia-Pacific region for America’s economic prosperity is the administration not being more proactive in promoting the completed agreement with South Korea? The TPP is less politically controversial to be sure but that is an indication that it is less ambitious. </source> [/INST] <claim>TPP will fail – FTA in the status quo there are barriers to free trade and gains will be limited</claim> <psg>—the most important export markets for the United States in the group— already have bilateral free trade agreements But the non-FTA markets are small. Even the generally protrade Peterson Institute for International Economics in a submission to the USTR in January in support of the TPP admits that “the U.S. payoff … depends on extending the TPP to other major economies of the Asia-Pacific region.” the potential to fully realize gains from free trade with the remaining TPP partners with which the United States does not already have an FTA is questionable. For example they all present political problems. Although not necessarily a serious irritant especially under the new administration New Zealand’s long-standing refusal to admit nuclear-powered ships into its harbors or join the Iraq war effort was seen as an obstacle to a previously proposed bilateral trade deal.6 Human-rights concerns in Vietnam and Brunei are in the sights of trade skeptics.7 the gains to American consumers from lowering tariffs on imports from the non-FTA TPP partners are by no means certain The U.S. tariff on petroleum products is relatively low and Brunei is not a significant source of oil for the United States. The ability of American consumers to benefit from lower prices and greater product variety is by no means assured especially compared to the benefits offered by other bigger deals that the administration could promote. . While Vietnam has potential to be an important export market for U.S. businesses because of its rapid growth and anticipated future need for high value-added imports of goods and services its experience with United States trade politics does not augur well for a truly liberalizing agreement this time around Textile and apparel imports which would offer significant benefits to American consumers if they were allowed to come in freely and has called for textiles to be excluded from the TPP negotiations Similarly the bruising experience with the sugar lobby during the negotiations for the FTA with Australia serves as a warning for those that hope a TPP might through freer trade with New Zealand bring U.S. consumers long-overdue access to competitive dairy products The Office of the USTR has already hinted that sugar would not be on the table for further liberalization even though it would bring significant gains for U.S. consumers Congress “are more open and receptive” to the idea of creating a trans-Pacific agreement because they could start the agreement from scratch.1 would be free to insert potentially deal-breaking labor and environmental standards and generally assert their will. That is not good news. As a general matter members of Congress take a more parochial view of trade agreements than do administrations being naturally concerned about the effect of any trade deal on politically powerful constituents rather than the national interest. A newly introduced bill that would withdraw the United States from NAFTA is a similar indication of congressional mood. Far from upgrading trade agreements to “platinum” status as some commentators have insisted that they would adding extraneous social and intellectual property standards may tarnish the sheen of otherwise promising opportunities to expand economic liberty. TPP would need to be renegotiated to fit the new administration’s vision. In a truly disappointing display of political timidity Ambassador Kirk gave depressing reasons for why the administration sees the TPP as higher priority than other agreements that have already been signed less of a political burden for Congress because they would likely take 18 to 24 months to develop and the agreement would not come up in Congress for approval until after the 2010 elections. All of this calls into question the administration’s true commitment to freer trade. Why for example given their insistence about the importance of the Asia-Pacific region for America’s economic prosperity is the administration not being more proactive in promoting the completed agreement with South Korea? The TPP is less politically controversial to be sure but that is an indication that it is less ambitious.</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 a result of the problems of replacing existing PTAs by the beginning of 2011 the United States began to argue against ‘reopening’ existing agreements.42 For the United States the best outcome for narrow individual objectives was likely obtained by bilateral negotiations. As the most powerful country in the talks with a market size that dominates the rest of the group the United States can largely get what it wants in bilateral settings. (It may of course also dominate in larger group settings although this is likely to be more difficult especially if the remaining eight members remain united in opposition.) It has demonstrated this ability repeatedly vis-à-vis this group of countries and can be seen by examining the existing PTA arrangements. Because the U.S.-Peru agreement was negotiated most recently it contains some of the strongest rule provisions to date - some of which intrude deep into Peruvian domestic arenas. Even Australia regarded as the second most powerful state at the TPP table was unable to prevail over the U.S. in bilateral negotiations. We have already discussed the sugar issue. Of greater importance to Australia however was the set of new rules governing intellectual property rights and the abilities of public health authorities in Australia to regulate pharmaceutical products. 43 In the TPP therefore the United States proposed that it conduct negotiations by opening bilateral talks with countries with which it does not already have a PTA. It would then attempt to get an agreement that includes the most critical items on its agenda. At the end of the day the eight different bilateral deals with the Americans will be put onto the table. Anything not already covered in these bilateral agreements could be addressed multilaterally among the nine. The final document then would include a partial ‘common’ agreement that applied to all nine countries as well as some separate annexes and schedules with specific commitments for individual countries. In practice this means that the TPP will simply be another PTA added to the mix of potential rules governing trade with members. The second round of TPP talks in San Francisco in June 2010 failed to settle the issue of how the TPP would sit in relation to other PTAs. The United States came out as a strong supporter of keeping existing market access agreements from bilateral PTAs. Singapore Australia and New Zealand argued hard for a comprehensive agreement in the TPP that would supersede existing PTA agreements.44 The issue is most stark in market access for goods since all of the existing PTAs contain various provisions for reducing barriers to trade in goods. (This is different from services for example since not all existing PTAs have rules covering services or offer the same comprehensive approach to liberalizing trade in services between partners.) The lead negotiators and heads of trade departments dealing with goods met formally three times between March and August 2010 in an attempt to deal with the vexing issue of how to negotiate. At the end of the third ‘inter-sessional’ meeting in Peru the group essentially decided not to decide.45 Instead of agreeing to negotiate bilaterally or multilaterally officials reached an interim ‘agreement’ to avoid discussing it any longer. They agreed to ‘skip over’ the issue and focus instead on offering specific market access deals to various members.46 </source> [/INST] <claim>No multilateral trade deal – US only wants bilateral negotiations and past talks prove </claim> <psg>the U S began to argue against ‘reopening’ existing agreements. For the U S the best outcome was likely obtained by bilateral negotiations. As the most powerful country in the talks with a market size that dominates the rest of the group the United States can largely get what it wants in bilateral settings in larger group settings this is more difficult especially if the remaining eight members remain united in opposition In the TPP therefore the United States proposed that it conduct negotiations by opening bilateral talks with countries with which it does not already have a PTA In practice this means that the TPP will simply be another PTA added to the mix of potential rules governing trade with members. The second round of TPP talks failed to settle the issue of how the TPP would sit in relation to other PTAs. The issue is most stark in market access for goods since all of the existing PTAs contain various provisions for reducing barriers to trade in goods.</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 a real danger that an inward looking TPP which extends benefits only to initial members at the expense of non-members including some in East Asia would damage the already weakened global multilateral system. The region’s interest lies in protecting the global system which has benefitted it greatly. A stalled Doha round was a widely used excuse for pushing FTAs with political allies but a weakened WTO after the Doha failure is reason to be extremely wary of damaging the global trading system with regionally divisive discriminatory trade arrangements. </source> [/INST] <claim>A preferential TPP would damage the global trade system and encourage further discrimination</claim> <psg>TPP extends benefits only to initial members at the expense of non-members including some in East Asia would damage the already weakened global multilateral system. The region’s interest lies in protecting the global system which has benefitted it greatly</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> Progress with the TPP and how it is managed is important to the global trading system especially post-Doha. A major regional agreement such as this now needs to be tied to buttressing the global trading system and supporting multilateral outcomes. A clear agreement on multilateralisation of preferences both in tariffs and non-tariff areas such as services as an eventual goal and commitments to open the region would be significant positives for the multilateral system. </source> [/INST] <claim>TPP crushes multilateral trade</claim> <psg>TPP is important to the global trading system A major regional agreement such as this now needs to be tied to buttressing the global trading system and supporting multilateral outcomes. A clear agreement on multilateralisation of preferences as an eventual goal and commitments to open the region would be significant positives for the multilateral system.</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 genuine regional trade agreement? A second and related issue is whether the TPP will be a genuine regional trade agreement in which each party will have a single tariff schedule that will apply equally to all other parties or whether TPP parties will have different tariff schedules for different members. Again there was a difference of opinion between Australia Singapore and NZ on the one hand which wanted a genuinely regional trade agreement and the US on the other hand which did not want to re-open the issue of its existing market access commitments with TPP partners. At the time of writing this question was still undecided. it remains to be seen whether the TPP will emulate the P4 in being a genuine regional PTA or whether it will resemble the ASEAN FTA’s complex web of bilateral agreements. Should the latter modality prevail it is likely to make the TPP a less attractive proposition for future entrants (M. K. Lewis 2011). Rules of origin Much of the literature on the multilateralisation of regionalism has focused on measures to minimise the systemic harm caused by preferential ROOs and rules of cumulation (ROCs) which are the criteria that determine whether goods are eligible for preferential treatment under the terms of a PTA. ROOs determine the proportion of non-originating inputs allowed in a good in order for it to qualify for preferential access. ROCs determine the list of countries whose inputs can be considered to have originating status for the purpose of a PTA. Restrictive ROOs and ROCs increase trade costs by increasing barriers to trade between members and non-members of a PTA by inhibiting access to competitively priced inputs from outside the PTA and by increasing transaction costs for business that deal with more than one PTA. The welfare damage caused by these rules is exacerbated by the divergence of ROOs regimes around the world which have the potential to balkanise the global trade system and promote the rise of ‘hub and spoke’ systems that disadvantage the smaller economies relegated to spoke status (Estevadeordal Harris and Suominen 2009). The problem of divergence is especially acute in the Asia-Pacific region due to the difference of approaches in East Asian and US ROOs regimes. The prevailing practice in East Asia which has a relatively liberal approach to ROOs is the use of a fixed general rule requiring for most products that a specific percentage of the value of a product be added locally. By contrast the US approach uses product-specific rules which means that there is more variability in the ROOs. This divergence in approaches is a problem for customs authorities (due to the administrative costs involved in identifying the correct rules) and for companies that trade across different types of ROOs regimes. And the more restrictive the ROOs regime is the more that divergence matters (Estevadeordal Harris and Suominen 2009). To the extent that competition between the East Asian and US approach to ROOs is likely to pose obstacles to the efforts to merge PTAs in the Asia-Pacific region (APEC 2008b) PTAs that seek to address these diverging approaches to ROOs could be considered to be advancing the cause of multilateralisation (Scollay and Trewin 2006). The P4 was among the first of the Asia-Pacific PTAs to introduce the US model and these rules will also be used in the TPP. The willingness of ASEAN members of the TPP – Malaysia Singapore and Vietnam – to move away from the East Asian approach to ROOs in favour of the US approach suggests some convergence in the Asia-Pacific. On the downside the US model is generally more restrictive and complex than ROOs regimes in Southeast Asia and Latin America. This relatively illiberal approach is evident in the P4 which compared with other PTAs around the world is at the higher end of the scale for both complexity and restrictiveness (Estevadeordal Harris and Suominen 2009: 287–91). Non-tariff measures Most of the literature on multilateralising regionalism has focused on market access provisions for trade in goods and the related issues of ROOs and ROCs in qualifying for tariff preferences. However recent work (e.g. Baldwin et al. 2009. Estevadeordal Suominen and Teh 2009) also gives consideration to the way in which the treatment of NTMs in PTAs may help to promote trade cooperation on a non-discriminatory basis. This objective may be realised through the inclusion of most-favoured-nation (MFN) provisions for particular rules or policies either by design or because it is unfeasible to apply them on a discriminatory basis. the use of third-party MFN clauses that enable PTA partners to benefit automatically from any more favourable treatment given to others in subsequent PTAs. and/or provisions that prevent actions allowable under WTO rules from being applied in a discriminatory manner. The draft text of the TPP draws heavily on the P4 which in turn was strongly supportive of multilateral rules and norms in its treatment of NTMs. For example market access commitments in the P4 regarding trade in services are made on an MFN basis. they include an upward ratcheting of policy bindings which helps to lock in future liberalisation. and they provide for third-party MFN such that each party receives as of right the benefits of any additional services liberalisation that any party commits to in future PTAs with other countries. In relation to rules regarding Technical Barriers to Trade and Trade Remedies the P4 reaffirms existing WTO agreements. Thus it seems reasonable to assume that the TPP’s treatment of NTMs will help to advance the multilateralisation of regionalism in the Asia-Pacific. Overall however the design features of the TPP constrain its potential to contribute to multilateralisation. While the approach to NTMs is positive those on ROOs and the efforts to replace existing bilateral agreements witha genuinely regional arrangement are far less so. To account for the limited multilateralising potential of the TPP we turn in the final section of this article to the political economy forces shaping it. </source> [/INST] <claim>TPP can’t solve multilateralism or regionalism – not genuine and structural issues</claim> <psg>A genuine regional trade agreement? A second and related issue is whether the TPP will be a genuine regional trade agreement in which each party will have a single tariff schedule that will apply equally to all other parties or whether TPP parties will have different tariff schedules for different members. US on the other hand which did not want to re-open the issue of its existing market access commitments with TPP partners. whether it will resemble the ASEAN FTA’s complex web of bilateral agreements. Should the latter modality prevail it is likely to make the TPP a less attractive proposition for future entrants Much of the literature on the multilateralisation of regionalism has focused on measures to minimise the systemic harm caused by preferential ROOs and rules of cumulation PTA. ROOs determine the proportion of non-originating inputs allowed in a good in order for it to qualify for preferential access. ROCs determine the list of countries whose inputs can be considered to have originating status for the purpose of a PTA. Restrictive ROOs and ROCs increase trade costs by increasing barriers to trade between members and non-members of a PTA by inhibiting access to competitively priced inputs from outside the PTA and by increasing transaction costs for business that deal with more than one PTA. The welfare damage caused by these rules is exacerbated by the divergence of ROOs regimes around the world which have the potential to balkanise the global trade system and promote the rise of ‘hub and spoke’ systems that disadvantage the smaller economies relegated to spoke status By contrast the US approach uses product-specific rules which means that there is more variability in the ROOs. This divergence in approaches is a problem for customs authorities . And the more restrictive the ROOs regime is the more that divergence matters To the extent that competition between the East Asian and US approach to ROOs is likely to pose obstacles to the efforts to merge PTAs in the Asia-Pacific region The P4 was among the first of the Asia-Pacific PTAs to introduce the US model and these rules will also be used in the TPP. the US model is generally more restrictive and complex than ROOs regimes in Southeast Asia and Latin America. This relatively illiberal approach is evident in the P4 which compared with other PTAs around the world is at the higher end of the scale for both complexity and restrictiveness However recent work also gives consideration to the way in which the treatment of NTMs in PTAs may help to promote trade cooperation on a non-discriminatory basis. This objective may be realised through the inclusion of most-favoured-nation enable PTA partners to benefit automatically from any more favourable treatment given to others in subsequent PTAs. and/or provisions that prevent actions allowable under WTO rules from being applied in a discriminatory manner. the P4 regarding trade in services are made on an MFN basis. they include an upward ratcheting of policy bindings which helps to lock in future liberalisation. and they provide for third-party MFN such that each party receives as of right the benefits of any additional services liberalisation that any party commits to in future PTAs with other countries. the design features of the TPP constrain its potential to contribute to multilateralisation. While the approach to NTMs is positive those on ROOs and the efforts to replace existing bilateral agreements witha genuinely regional arrangement are far less so. To account for the limited multilateralising potential of the TPP we turn in the final section of this article to the political economy forces shaping 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> Cybersecurity is too critical an issue to languish in an SED Working Group. If we are serious why not have the U.S. cyber chief meet with their Chinese counterpart? Similarly on the respective U.S. and Chinese postures in East Asia new understandings need to be reached as to what each side can live with. And it would be helpful—if only to counter Chinese paranoia and conspiracy theories—if the administration would clearly articulate that China would be welcome to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). A major regional trade accord without the world’s largest trading power would be of dubious virtue. As China institutes its next wave of economic reforms meeting TPP’s high standards will be in its own interest to be competitive. There is a compelling rational case for Washington and Beijing to move toward a more cooperative relationship for mutual benefit. It is difficult to see global prosperity and a stable international system endure—let alone address global problems like climate change—with the United States and China drifting toward zero-sum competition. But history is littered with conflicts sparked by irrational actors. It will require leadership and vision from both sides to get past the current “security dilemma” behavior and worst-case fears. But absent that muddle-through management of the relationship may run out of fingers to put in the dikes over time </source> [/INST] <claim>They can’t access China – they don’t reach out and relations cannot be solved – the security dilemma</claim> <psg>if only to counter Chinese paranoia and conspiracy theories—if the administration would clearly articulate that China would be welcome to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership A major regional trade accord without the world’s largest trading power would be of dubious virtue. As China institutes its next wave of economic reforms rational case for Washington and Beijing to move toward a more cooperative relationship for mutual benefit. It But history is littered with conflicts sparked by irrational actors. It will require leadership and vision from both sides to get past the current “security dilemma” behavior and worst-case fears. But absent that muddle-through management of the relationship may run out of fingers to put in the dikes over time</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 commentary for the Financial Times David Pilling argues that the central objective of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations is the exclusion of China. In his view the desire to build an “anyone but China” club is due both to the perception that China got an easy pass when it joined the WTO and has continued to flaunt international trade and investment rules. and to the articulation of a larger political strategy to marginalize this emerging superpower. Pilling goes on to predict that the TPP will fail to deliver major liberalization as the traditional pattern of shielding sensitive sectors will emerge and admonishes that only a much diluted trade agreement faces a realistic chance of ratification given the fractured consensus on the new proposed rules. In this rendition the TPP appears politically myopic and economically irrelevant. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP shuts out China and doesn’t help trade</claim> <psg>David Pilling argues that the central objective of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations is the exclusion of China desire to build an “anyone but China” club is due both to the perception that China got an easy pass when it joined the WTO and has continued to flaunt international trade and investment rules Pilling goes on to predict that the TPP will fail to deliver major liberalization as the traditional pattern of shielding sensitive sectors will emerge and admonishes that only a much diluted trade agreement faces a realistic chance of ratification given the fractured consensus on the new proposed rules. In this rendition the TPP appears politically myopic and economically irrelevant.</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> Progress on the TPP trade agreement also ruffled some feathers. At the APEC Leaders Meeting President Obama announced that the US and eight other countries – Australia Brunei Chile Malaysia New Zealand Peru Singapore and Vietnam – had agreed to complete the TPP accord within one year. China was noticeably absent from the negotiations and several Chinese officials commented that US expectations for the TPP were “too high” for other Asian countries. Chinese Assistant Commerce Minister Yu Jianhua stated at a press briefing in Beijing that such new trade mechanisms should be “open and inclusive” and called for members to find a balance between TPP and pre-existing trade mechanisms arguing that the latter should act as the major channel while other regional mechanisms could be supplemental. Yu complained that China had not received “any invitation from any TPP economy ” but that if it did China would “seriously study the invitation.” US Trade Representative Ron Kirk responded that the TPP is an open architecture and it “is not designed to be a closed clubhouse.” Michael Froman retorted that the TPP “is not something one gets invited to. It’s something one aspires to.” Despite US reassurances criticism of the TPP continued in Chinese media where some argued that the trade agreement was aimed at diminishing China’s role and ensuring US leadership in regional economic integration. For instance Li Hongmei argued in Xinhua that the US intention behind the TPP was to play a “dominant role” in the Pacific by “handpicking its members and systemizing and regulating” these other countries in accordance with US standards. While Li recognized that the TPP was part of the US pivot to Asia the trade pact could also become a replacement for APEC and would thus “contain and counterbalance” China’s influence and “strategic space” in the region. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP is exclusive to China – they wont join</claim> <psg>Progress on the TPP trade agreement also ruffled some feathers China was noticeably absent from the negotiations and several Chinese officials commented that US expectations for the TPP were “too high” for other Asian countries. Chinese Assistant Commerce Minister Yu Jianhua stated at a press briefing in Beijing that such new trade mechanisms should be “open and inclusive” and called for members to find a balance between TPP and pre-existing trade mechanisms arguing that the latter should act as the major channel while other regional mechanisms could be supplemental. China had not received “any invitation from any TPP economy China would “seriously study the invitation TPP is an open architecture and it “is not designed to be a closed clubhouse.” .” Despite US reassurances criticism of the TPP continued in Chinese media where some argued that the trade agreement was aimed at diminishing China’s role and ensuring US leadership in regional economic integratio TPP was to play a “dominant role” in the Pacific by “handpicking its members and systemizing and regulating” these other countries in accordance with US standards. While Li recognized that the TPP was part of the US pivot to Asia the trade pact could also become a replacement for APEC and would thus “contain and counterbalance” China’s influence and “strategic space” in the region.</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> Nonetheless China also has good reason not to join the trade partnership. Being a member would mean having to accept America's leading role. American leadership and dominance is likely to be cemented should the partnership emerge as the dominant trade order for the Asia-Pacific. This would not only pose threats to China's regional role but would also not go down well at home. Furthermore China is also involved in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership that comprises all 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus Australia India Japan New Zealand and South Korea. Essentially China-led this trade pact has been seen as a rival to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. </source> [/INST] <claim>China won’t join – US and ASAEN</claim> <psg>China also has good reason not to join the trade partnership. Being a member would mean having to accept America's leading role. American leadership and dominance is likely to be cemented should the partnership emerge as the dominant trade order for the Asia-Pacific This would not only pose threats to China's regional role but would also not go down well at home. China is also involved in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership that comprises all 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus Australia India Japan New Zealand and South Korea. Essentially China-led this trade pact has been seen as a rival to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.</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 more constructive part of the pivot should have been the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But even on this count the US has caused more suspicion than goodwill in China. The TPP was designed for like-minded countries to form in President Barack Obama’s words “a platinum” free-trade agreement for the Asia-Pacific region. It was the result of both America’s agony with the ineffectiveness of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum and the White House’s political strategy to please those on both the right and the left – it expands free trade so Republicans are happy. but it also requires member countries to meet labour environmental and even human rights standards so Democrats are happy. To most Chinese however the TPP is one of America’s intentional moves to exclude China. For one thing there is no way for China to meet its conditions in the medium term. For another the TPP will not bring significant gains to the US precisely because China the US’s largest trading partner in the region is not going to join. More importantly China was not part of the design process. To China the TPP is a club set up solely on American will. China can knock on the door but can be rejected. Ten years ago when China applied to join the World Trade Organisation this would not be a problem. Today China feels differently: it has become reluctant to accept something if it does not feel ownership. In a sense all Chinese history since the mid-1800s has involved China trying to become as equal as other world powers. Today China’s leaders and the Chinese people are increasingly feeling that point is coming. Yet the existing powers noticeably the US and EU may have different ideas about equality. To them China will only be treated as “one of us” after China is fully transformed politically and socially. This discrepancy of beliefs will be a major source of tension between China and existing powers in the coming years. </source> [/INST] <claim>China can’t and won’t join the TPP</claim> <psg>The more constructive part of the pivot should have been the Trans-Pacific Partnership the US has caused more suspicion than goodwill in China the TPP is one of America’s intentional moves to exclude China. For one thing there is no way for China to meet its conditions in the medium term. For another the TPP will not bring significant gains to the US precisely because China the US’s largest trading partner in the region is not going to join. China was not part of the design process. To China the TPP is a club set up solely on American will. China can knock on the door but can be rejected. Ten years ago when China applied to join the World Trade Organisation this would not be a problem. Today China feels differently: it has become reluctant to accept something if it does not feel ownership. d China trying to become as equal as other world powers. T Yet the existing powers noticeably the US and EU may have different ideas about equality. To them China will only be treated as “one of us” after China is fully transformed politically and socially. This discrepancy of beliefs will be a major source of tension between China and existing powers in the coming years.</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 many good foreign policy reasons to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) a free-trade agreement currently being negotiated between the U.S. and ten other Pacific rim countries: Australia Brunei Chile Canada Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Peru Singapore and Vietnam. The participating nations have held 17 rounds of negotiations since 2010 in complete secrecy and without any input from civic social or other non-corporate entity. Even the U.S. Congress has been kept in the dark: in May of 2012 Oregon Senator Ron Wyden introduced a bill which would require the release of the TPP negotiating texts to the U.S. Congress yet at the same time 600 U.S. “trade advisers ” including representatives of Halliburton Chevron Phillip Morris and other multi-national corporations have complete access to everything and are in fact writing the TPP to further their own interests. This is akin to the American Legislative Executive Council (ALEC) writing legislation which would benefit its members or in more colloquial terms the fox guarding the hen house. There is significant and growing opposition to the TPP even though what little is known about its specifics has arrived through leaks. What we do know is that it seems to have little to do with actual trade issues like tariff reduction and trade promotion but everything to do with granting unprecedented power to multi-national corporations and quashing consumer labor and environmental interests. We agree with those who have called the TPP “…a wish list of the 1%--a worldwide corporate grab of enormous proportions.” The TPP like every other trade agreement before it pays short shrift to workers rights but gives multi-national corporations the equal power of sovereign nations who can be sued for loss of expected profits due to health environmental zoning labor or other policies. Investors can acquire land natural resources factories and more. Chevron is asking a corporate tribunal to release them from their obligation to clean up toxic contamination of the Amazon and Phillip Morris is challenging Uruguay over cigarette warning labels. The desire of the Bush and the Obama administrations to pass the TPP is apparently an effort to create a coalition of nations to match China’s exploding economy and increased military and political influence in the region. On Nov 12 2011 Obama spoke before the Summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum and stated that “… we’ve turned our attention back to the Asia Pacific region.” This is being accomplished through two vehicles: the TPP and the “Pivot to Asia ” meaning a redeployment of American priorities and military forces away from Europe and the Middle East to Asia. Also in the same month this time speaking before the Australian Parliament Obama said: “As a Pacific nation the United States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future.” The United States now has 320 000 troops in the Pacific region and the Pentagon has promised there will be no reductions as troops are drawn down in Afghanistan and other parts of the world. This turn of focus to the Asia-Pacific region militarily along with the promotion of the TPP sends signals to countries in the region particularly smaller countries like Malaysia and Singapore that the U.S. is willing to play the role of security guard for their interests while sacrificing our own long-term interests in the way of good jobs and manufacturing. In other words we seem to be willing to gain short-term geopolitical tactical gains for long-term strategic losses — a plan that is doomed to failure. We will continue to hemorrhage jobs and our trade deficits will continue to increase. It makes little sense to treat China as an enemy by holding provocative joint exercises with Australia South Korea and Japan patrolling Chinese waters and building new military facilities in Australia and South Korea. The U.S. would be making a grievous mistake by getting into an arms race with China. The decline of US influence in Asia is not due to lack of military power and presence but rather to eroding competitiveness. Regaining economic strength has become a matter of the highest geopolitical priority. We can no longer subordinate trade to national security considerations because trade IS national security. The Obama administration does not realize that although the TPP will strengthen the interests of major corporations and investors it will directly harm our national interests with increased unemployment and a smaller tax base. We cannot continue to try to solve every problem with our military. Any new trade agreements must protect workers rights refrain from giving corporations the same status and power as sovereign nations and protect natural resources. The U.S. must protect and create good jobs in sustainable industries and we need to understand that corporate interests and government interests are not one in the same. A much better foreign policy would respect human rights labor rights and protect the environment. It would seek to uplift people out of poverty and provide basic human needs like shelter food water and education. The TPP is a truly bad idea that would only speed up the race to the bottom. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP is the linchpin of the Asia Pivot and will be used to completely isolate China</claim> <psg>There are many good foreign policy reasons to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) a free-trade agreement currently being negotiated between the U.S complete secrecy and without any input from civic social or other non-corporate entity This is akin to the American Legislative Executive Council (ALEC) writing legislation which would benefit its members or in more colloquial terms the fox guarding the hen house What we do know is that it seems to have little to do with actual trade issues like tariff reduction and trade promotion but everything to do with granting unprecedented power to multi-national corporations and quashing consumer labor and environmental interests. the TPP “…a wish list of the 1%--a worldwide corporate grab of enormous proportions. Investors can acquire land natural resources factories and more. The desire of the Bush and the Obama administrations to pass the TPP is apparently an effort to create a coalition of nations to match China’s exploding economy and increased military and political influence in the region. we’ve turned our attention back to the Asia Pacific region.” This is being accomplished through two vehicles: the TPP and the “Pivot to Asia ” meaning a redeployment of American priorities and military forces away from Europe and the Middle East to Asia. As a Pacific nation the United States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future.” The United States now has 320 000 troops in the Pacific region and the Pentagon has promised there will be no reductions as troops are drawn down in Afghanistan and other parts of the world This turn of focus to the Asia-Pacific region militarily along with the promotion of the TPP sends signals to countries in the region particularly smaller countries like Malaysia and Singapore that the U.S. is willing to play the role of security guard for their interests while sacrificing our own long-term interests in the way of good jobs and manufacturing. a plan that is doomed to failure patrolling Chinese waters and building new military facilities in Australia and South Korea. The U.S. would be making a grievous mistake by getting into an arms race with China. The decline of US influence in Asia is not due to lack of military power and presence but rather to eroding competitiveness. We can no longer subordinate trade to national security considerations because trade IS national security. T A much better foreign policy would respect human rights labor rights and protect the environment. It would seek to uplift people out of poverty and provide basic human needs like shelter food water and education. The TPP is a truly bad idea that would only speed up the race to the bottom.</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> 1) There is a danger of overpromising. The new defense guidelines were released in January 2012 at same time as talk of a 'pivot' began. Concurrently details of a new operational concept called Air Sea Battle were released that despite protestations to the contrary is more or less about how to defeat China in a conflict. This coincidence of events has regional allies believing that the U.S. has carefully developed some new 'secret sauce' to keep the peace in Asia. The reality so far is two Littoral Combat Ships in Singapore some good speeches in Vietnam and some marines in Australia. 2) The administration is making critical strategic choices that will affect its posture in Asia. One choice is to slash the defense budget. It already did so in 2009 to the tune of about $400 billion. This year the Budget Control Act will kick in lopping off hundreds of billions more. The president has every right to choose the salvaging of and creation of more social welfare programs over the defense that is needed in Asia but it is dangerous to misalign your stated strategic goals and your resources -- this is the famous 'Lippman Gap.' 3) The defense cuts badly affect the forces we need in Asia. The stealthy F-35 program has taken a big hit. The navy has said it needs anywhere from 500 to 313 ships in its fleet. It will end up with around 285 total ships by the end of the next five year defense program. The much touted next generation long-range bomber is underfunded -- by 2017 it is unlikely that we will have more than an industrial competition to build it which means years before it comes on line. The list goes on: missile defense takes a hit as does most certainly the workhorse of any Asian contingency -- attack submarines. 4) India. There is simply no way to check China's power if Afghanistan descends into chaos and India has to respond. In the rough and tumble of international politics it is very difficult to get regions to conform with U.S. government flow charts. India can only fully integrate into East Asia if there is some semblance of security along its land borders. 5) It is also unrealistic to think we can spend less time on the Middle East in order to spend more time in Asia for two reasons. First the Chinese are competing with us in that critical region to mostly bad effect. Second our allies depend on the stability we provide in the Middle East for oil. Now the ugly: 1) Things with China will get ugly. Our talk of rebalancing is a response to Chinese power and provocations. The competition is intensifying. We repeat the mantra that our efforts in Asia are not about China as if saying it makes it true. In reality politics like physics has an action-reaction cycle. While we are doing the right thing China certainly views our actions as hostile. We should expect China to up its game militarily. </source> [/INST] <claim>The “Asia Pivot” will lead to Chinese aggression </claim> <psg>The new defense guidelines were released in January 2012 at same time as talk of a 'pivot' began. new operational concept called Air Sea Battle were released that despite protestations to the contrary is more or less about how to defeat China in a conflict. president has every right to choose the salvaging of and creation of more social welfare programs over the defense that is needed in Asia but it is dangerous to misalign your stated strategic goals and your resources -- this is the famous 'Lippman Gap.' The defense cuts badly affect the forces we need in Asia The much touted next generation long-range bomber is underfunded -- by 2017 it is unlikely that we will have more than an industrial competition to build it which means years before it comes on line. The list goes on: missile defense takes a hit as does most certainly the workhorse of any Asian contingency -- attack submarines . There is simply no way to check China's power if Afghanistan descends into chaos and India has to respond India can only fully integrate into East Asia if there is some semblance of security along its land borders. is also unrealistic to think we can spend less time on the Middle East in order to spend more time in Asia for two reasons. First the Chinese are competing with us in that critical region to mostly bad effect. Second our allies depend on the stability we provide in the Middle East for oil. Things with China will get ugly talk of rebalancing is a response to Chinese power and provocations. . In reality politics like physics has an action-reaction cycle. While we are doing the right thing China certainly views our actions as hostile. We should expect China to up its game militarily. </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> An important plan that is receiving greater official attention and Chinese condemnation is 'Air Sea Battle ' a comprehensive strategy developed by the Department of Defense in case 'an angry aggressive and heavily armed China' should decide to attack American forces. This counterattack by the Air Force and the Navy would involve conventional strike tactics. A graphic depicting the strategy can be found here. Developed by Andrew Marshall and Andrew Krepinevich the Air Sea Battle concept involves the following: 1. Increasing bomb resistant aircraft shelters and bring repair kits to fix damaged airstrips. 2. Using stealthy bombers and quiet submarines to wage a 'blinding campaign' in which long range Chinese surveillance and precision missile systems are targeted to open up the area of denial which includes the disputed areas within the East and South China seas. 3. Dispersing aircraft to Tinian and Palau islands which are outside the range of Chinese land-based anti-ship missiles in order to confuse the enemy's targeting processes. Critics doubt the necessity of such a plan. MIT Security Studies Program director Barry Posen says that instead of questioning whether there will be security concerns or threats the highly influential Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon which Andrew Marshall heads “convince[s] others to act as if the worst cases are inevitable.” In fact over two dozen war scenarios run by Krepinevich's defense think tank the Center for Budgetary and Strategic Assessments cast China as an aggressive enemy. This potentially alarmist thinking has lately attracted the attention of top military officials suggesting that the plan or something similar may come to fruition. However to realize this plan there would have to be an increase in or reallocation of military spending which is something that may not be realized if the U.S. goes over the fiscal cliff this upcoming January. Undoubtedly such strategies have been a growing source of concern for Beijing. Colonel Fan Gaoyue said “If the U.S. military develops Air-Sea Battle to deal with the [People’s Liberation Army] the PLA will be forced to develop anti-Air-Sea Battle.' The back-and-forth defense escalation bespeaks the suspicious nature of security agencies in general that could contribute to the deterioration of bilateral relations. With things as they are now tensions are quickly rising on both sides because they are both approaching each other with a zero-sum mentality. Even with their almost inextricable economic and trade interdependence the politics of Chinese containment and American repulsion could become a military conflict before long. As shown by the Chinese-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Chinese citizens are willing to boycott foreign goods and services in a surge of patriotic fervor. Therefore even economic interdependence may not deter war if the strategic interests of both the U.S. and China are compromised. The two leaders must engage in an open discussion which addresses these problems honestly and come up with practical solutions that move beyond their ideological and cultural differences. If not done soon we will all suffer. </source> [/INST] <claim>The Asia pivot will lead to a deterioration of relations with china and remove the only barrier to Chinese agression</claim> <psg>An important plan that is receiving greater official attention and Chinese condemnation is 'Air Sea Battle ' a comprehensive strategy developed by the Department of Defense in case 'an angry aggressive and heavily armed China' Critics doubt the necessity of such a plan MIT Security Studies Program director Barry Posen says that instead of questioning whether there will be security concerns or threats the highly influential Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon which Andrew Marshall heads “convince[s] others to act as if the worst cases are inevitable.” In fact over two dozen war scenarios run by Krepinevich's defense think tank the Center for Budgetary and Strategic Assessments cast China as an aggressive enemy. potentially alarmist thinking has lately attracted the attention of top military officials suggesting that the plan or something similar may come to fruition realize this plan there would have to be an increase in or reallocation of military spending which is something that may not be realized if the U.S. goes over the fiscal cliff this upcoming January. Undoubtedly such strategies have been a growing source of concern for Beijing “If the U.S. military develops Air-Sea Battle to deal with the [People’s Liberation Army] the PLA will be forced to develop anti-Air-Sea Battle.' back-and-forth defense escalation bespeaks the suspicious nature of security agencies in general that could contribute to the deterioration of bilateral relations. tensions are quickly rising on both sides because they are both approaching each other with a zero-sum mentality. Even with their almost inextricable economic and trade interdependence the politics of Chinese containment and American repulsion could become a military conflict before long Chinese citizens are willing to boycott foreign goods and services in a surge of patriotic fervo even economic interdependence may not deter war if the strategic interests of both the U.S. and China are compromised. If not done soon we will all suffer.</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 of the predictable consequences of Obama’s Asia-Pivot is that by boosting support to all of China’s U.S.-allied neighbors those countries are emboldened to stand up to China as an enemy and China is likewise emboldened to counter the onslaught. Needless to say this makes conflict more likely. The Washington Post: China’s most daring adversary in Southeast Asia is by many measurements ill-suited for a fight. The Philippines has a military budget one-fortieth the size of Beijing’s and its navy cruises through contested waters in 1970s hand-me-downs from the South Vietnamese. From that short-handed position the Philippines has set off on a risky mission to do what no nation in the region has managed to do: thwart China in its drive to control the vast waters around it. So tiny little Philippines is angling for a fight with China despite a military budget one-fortieth the size of Beijing’s. Are we surprised? Throughout 2012 the U.S. increased its military and economic support for the Philippines government while at the same time expanding the American military presence in the country. This at a time when the Obama administration publicly pledges to support any U.S. ally that is threatened by China and vocally chastises Beijing for subtly staking claims to contested maritime territories. Undoubtedly Manila got the right message. But the militaristic response to 21st century China was not obvious to all Filipinos. “Analysts say the Philippines’ strategy in standing up to Asia’s powerhouse is just as likely to backfire as succeed ” the Post continues. “But it provides a crucial test case as smaller countries debate whether to deal with China as a much-needed economic partner a dangerous maritime aggressor or both.” And there is the rub. Conceivably China and its neighbors could be getting along great through further economic trade and interdependence. The same goes for the U.S.-China relationship but Washington has instead aimed to turn peaceful economic exchange into a casus belli – and encouraged its smaller Asian allies to do the same. </source> [/INST] <claim>Their impact defense makes no sense – The asia pivot takes away the one thing holding China back – economic interdependence and it makes conflict more likely</claim> <psg>One of the predictable consequences of Obama’s Asia-Pivot is that by boosting support to all of China’s U.S.-allied neighbors those countries are emboldened to stand up to China as an enemy and China is likewise emboldened to counter the onslaught. Needless to say this makes conflict more likely. China’s most daring adversary in Southeast Asia is by many measurements ill-suited for a fight. The Philippines has a military budget one-fortieth the size of Beijing’s and its navy cruises through contested waters in 1970s hand-me-downs from the South Vietnamese. the Philippines has set off on a risky mission to do what no nation in the region has managed to do: thwart China in its drive to control the vast waters around it. Philippines is angling for a fight with China the U.S. increased its military and economic support for the Philippines government China was not obvious to all Filipinos. “Analysts say the Philippines’ strategy in standing up to Asia’s powerhouse is just as likely to backfire as succeed ” the Post continues. “But it provides a crucial test case as smaller countries debate whether to deal with China as a much-needed economic partner a dangerous maritime aggressor or both.” Conceivably China and its neighbors could be getting along great through further economic trade and interdependence. The same goes for the U.S.-China relationship but Washington has instead aimed to turn peaceful economic exchange into a casus belli – and encouraged its smaller Asian allies to do the same.</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 two major concerns about agreements like this. One is that these agreements continue a transition from a democratic system toward one in which the rights of foreign corporations can trump laws passed by legislative bodies. As Lee put it “Every time you have a new trade agreement you expand the number of companies who can challenge American laws.” The second concern is far more frightening. America’s dependence on China was not an issue in 1992 when NAFTA was signed. Today it is. Lee noted “We’ve put ourselves in a very vulnerable position because of the concentrated source of supply on critical resources whether it’s China or elsewhere. I don’t agree that the TPP is the answer to this. In my view TPP if anything will exacerbate this. In TPP what’s being discussed are fairly weak rules of country of origin. Some of these countries may get substantial inputs from China. The TPP could become a conduit for the U.S. to become more dependent on China.” Barry Lynn spelled this out in a hypothetical disaster scenario in which American tensions with China cause genuine friction. This isn’t far-fetched as America is positioning military assets in the region. “Officials [in China] do not even need to impose some sort of across-the-board trade embargo to achieve their ends. Far more effective would be to put the squeeze on one industrial system or other or one company or other day after day in a systematic fashion until Washington cried uncle. The Pentagon has sketched out complex plans for how to respond to any use of force by China. Far more useful would be to know how the United States as a nation would respond when suddenly grandma can’t get her medicine. Or when suddenly the store shelves empty of batteries and lightbulbs. What does the president do when he has General Electric and Wal-Mart both on the phone demanding the restoration of normal trade? Or when Apple’s stock plummets because the company can’t move any of its iPhones through Chinese ports? The only real option is to embrace the logic of industrial interdependence hence to recognize that the only way for the United States to achieve its most vital national aims — indeed to be taken seriously by China — is no longer to reposition its aircraft carriers but to force its industrial and trading corporations to reposition the machines on which it depends. The United States does not need to bring all or even any of these systems of production home. But it can no longer continue to live in a world in which many activities remain in one location under the control of one state especially a strategic rival.” The TPP does not mitigate the threat of Chinese leverage over the American supply chain at all. It is at best a weak agreement that looks and sounds big but does very little except further undermine the power of American government to maintain consumer environmental and labor laws and protect public assets while denying some medicine to poor people and making it easier for copyright owners to take down websites they don’t like. But as the TPP is being portrayed in elite circles as the answer to the China dilemma perhaps the biggest danger inherent in the TPP is that the enormous threat implied in China controlling America’s industrial base is being ignored yet again. </source> [/INST] <claim>TPP is bad – kills democracy and destroys US power putting China in a position of leverage causing war</claim> <psg>There are two major concerns about agreements like this. One is that these agreements continue a transition from a democratic system toward one in which the rights of foreign corporations can trump laws passed by legislative bodies. a new trade agreement you expand the number of companies who can challenge American laws. America’s dependence on China was not an issue in 1992 when NAFTA was signed. Today it is. Lee noted “We’ve put ourselves in a very vulnerable position because of the concentrated source of supply on critical resources whether it’s China or elsewhere In my view TPP if anything will exacerbate this. In TPP what’s being discussed are fairly weak rules of country of origin. Some of these countries may get substantial inputs from China The TPP could become a conduit for the U.S. to become more dependent on China.” Barry Lynn spelled this out in a hypothetical disaster scenario in which American tensions with China cause genuine friction America is positioning military assets in the region. China] do not even need to impose some sort of across-the-board trade embargo to achieve their ends. Far more effective would be to put the squeeze on one industrial system or other or one company or other day after day in a systematic fashion until Washington cried uncle. complex plans for how to respond to any use of force by China suddenly grandma can’t get her medicine. Or when suddenly the store shelves empty of batteries and lightbulbs. What does the president do when he has General Electric and Wal-Mart both on the phone demanding the restoration of normal trade? Or when Apple’s stock plummets because the company can’t move any of its iPhones through Chinese ports logic of industrial interdependence hence to recognize that the only way for the United States to achieve its most vital national aims — indeed to be taken seriously by China — is no longer to reposition its aircraft carriers but to force its industrial and trading corporations to reposition the machines on which it depends. . But it can no longer continue to live in a world in which many activities remain in one location under the control of one state especially a strategic rival.” The TPP does not mitigate the threat of Chinese leverage over the American supply chain at all. It is at best a weak agreement that looks and sounds big but does very little except further undermine the power of American government to maintain consumer environmental and labor laws and protect public assets while denying some medicine to poor people and making it easier for copyright owners to take down websites they don’t like. But as the TPP is being portrayed in elite circles as the answer to the China dilemma perhaps the biggest danger inherent in the TPP is that the enormous threat implied in China controlling America’s industrial base is being ignored yet again.</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 opening of global markets — starting in 1947 with the first round of trade negotiations among 23 nations and the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) through the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1995 — caused international trade to explode and standards of living for nations rich and poor to soar. </source> [/INST] <claim>Integrating Mexico into TAFTA negotiations reignites support for widespread multilateral trade liberalization – decreases international violence globally</claim> <psg>The opening of global markets caused international trade to explode and standards of living for nations rich and poor to soar.</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> Nelson is Second City to Pass Critical Resolution on TPPA Nelson City Council passed a resolution setting a number of conditions for an acceptable Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) on Thursday 18 July. There were 6 votes for 1 against and 2 abstentions. The Nelson motion mirrors one passed by Auckland City last December. The Council declined the recommendation of a council researcher for a shortened less critical version and adopted the full resolution. Cr. Mike Ward who moved the motion spoke forcefully in favour of it pointing to the risk the TPPA posed to the healthy and participatory life of local communities. The resolution calls on the government to conclude negotiations on the TPPA and other free trade agreements in a way that provides net positive benefits for Nelson and New Zealand – and sets out a list of criteria to satisfy that test. The conditions target areas of particular concern to the powers and responsibilities of local government. They include retaining the right to give local preferences when spending ratepayers’ money on public procurement and the right to choose whether particular services or facilities are provided in house by council-controlled organisations. Nor should foreign investors have greater rights than locals. The motion also stressed the need to preserve the Council’s right to require more robust health and safety provisions environmental protection employment rights community participation animal protection or human rights standards than national or international minimum standards. In relation to democratic decision making the resolution urges that the text should not be signed off without full public consultation on the drafts and that ratification is conditional on a full social environmental and economic impact assessment. A large crowd attended the Nelson City Council public forum where the vote was taken. Graeme O’Brien the chief petitioner spoke to the meeting. Mr O’Brien called on other councils to follow suit flagging to central government that there is awareness and concern at local government level about the dangers of this secretly negotiated agreement. The resolution will be forwarded to the Government. RESOLUTION: That the Nelson City Council encourages the government to conclude negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Free Trade Agreements in a way that provides net positive benefits for Nelson and New Zealand ie the partnership and agreements achieve the following objectives: a) encourages the government to conclude negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Free Trade Agreements in a way that provides net positive benefits for Nelson and New Zealand. a) … that is provided the Partnership and Agreements achieve the following objectives: i. Continues to allow the Nelson Council and other councils if they so choose to adopt procurement policies that provide for a degree of local preference. to choose whether particular services or facilities are provided in house by council controlled organisations (CCOs) or by contracting out. or to require higher health and safety environmental protection employment rights and conditions community participation animal protection or human rights standards than national or international minimum standards. ii. Maintains good diplomatic and trade relations and partnerships for Nelson and New Zealand with other major trading partners not included in the agreement including with China. iii. Provides substantially increased access for our agriculture exports. iv. Does not undermine PHARMAC raise the cost of medical treatments and medicines or threaten public health measures such as tobacco control. v. Does not give overseas investors or suppliers any greater rights than domestic investors and suppliers such as through introducing Investor-State Dispute Settlement or reduce our ability to control overseas investment or finance. vi. Does not expand intellectual property rights and enforcement in excess of current law. vii. Does not weaken our public services require privatisation hinder reversal of privatisations or increase the commercialisation of government or of Nelson Council or other local government organisations. viii. Does not reduce our flexibility to support local economic and industry development and encourage good employment and environmental practices and initiatives like Council Cadetships and the Mayor’s Taskforce for Jobs which enable marginalised young people to develop their skills and transition into meaningful employment. ix. Contains enforceable labour clauses requiring adherence to core International Labour Organisation conventions and preventing reduction of labour rights for trade or investment advantage. x. Contains enforceable environmental clauses preventing reduction of environmental standards for trade or investment advantage. xi. Has general exceptions to protect human rights the environment the Treaty of Waitangi and New Zealand’s economic and financial stability. xii. Has been negotiated with real public consultation including regular public releases of drafts of the text of the agreement and ratification being conditional on a full social environmental and economic impact assessment including public submissions. </source> [/INST] <claim>Here’s a solvency advocate</claim> <psg>Nelson is Second City to Pass Critical Resolution on TPPA Nelson City Council passed a resolution setting a number of conditions for an acceptable Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA The conditions target areas of particular concern to the powers and responsibilities of local government relation to democratic decision making the resolution urges that the text should not be signed off without full public consultation on the drafts and that ratification is conditional on a full social environmental and economic impact assessment. there is awareness and concern at local government level about the dangers of this secretly negotiated agreement. conclude negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Free Trade Agreements in a way that provides net positive benefits for Nelson and New Zealand ie the partnership and agreements achieve the following objectives: encourages the government to conclude negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Free Trade Agreements in a way that provides net positive benefits for Nelson and New Zealan Continues to allow the Nelson Council and other councils if they so choose to adopt procurement policies that provide for a degree of local preference. to choose whether particular services or facilities are provided in house by council controlled organisations or by contracting out. or to require higher health and safety environmental protection employment rights and conditions community participation animal protection or human rights standards than national or international minimum standards. Maintains good diplomatic and trade relations and partnerships for Nelson and New Zealand with other major trading partners not included in the agreement including with China substantially increased access for our agriculture exports Does not undermine PHARMAC raise the cost of medical treatments and medicines or threaten public health measures such as tobacco control Does not expand intellectual property rights Does not weaken our public services Does not reduce our flexibility to support local economic and industry development and encourage good employment and environmental practices and initiatives Contains enforceable environmental clauses preventing reduction of environmental standards for trade or investment advantage Has been negotiated with real public consultation including regular public releases of drafts of the text of the agreement and ratification being conditional on a full social environmental and economic impact assessment including public submissions.</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> Request for comments on negotiating objectives with respect to Mexico's participation in the ongoing negotiations of a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and notice of public hearing. The United States intends to commence negotiations with Mexico as part of the ongoing negotiations of a TPP trade agreement. Including Mexico in the TPP negotiations furthers the objective of achieving a high-standard broad-based Asia-Pacific regional agreement. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is seeking public comments on all elements related to Mexico's participation in the TPP negotiations in order to develop U.S. negotiating positions. Persons wishing to testify orally at the hearing must provide written notification of their intention as well as their testimony by September 4 2012. The hearing will be held in Washington DC on September 21 2012. Written comments are due by noon September 4 2012. Submissions via on-line: www.regulations.gov. For alternatives to on-line submissions please contact Donald W. Eiss at (202) 395-3475. For questions concerning requirements for written comments please contact Donald W. Eiss at (202) 395-3475. All other questions regarding this notice should be directed to Kent Shigetomi Director for Mexico and NAFTA at (202) 395-3412. On November 13 2011 Mexican Economy Secretary Bruno Ferrari stated Mexico's intention to begin consultations with the current TPP participating countries regarding Mexico's participation in the TPP negotiations. On December 7 2011 USTR published notices in theFederal Register(76 FR 76479) seeking public comments on Mexico's possible participation in the TPP negotiations. On July 9 2012 following consultations with relevant Congressional committees and after having reached consensus on Mexico's participation with the other TPP negotiating partners (Australia Brunei Darussalam Chile Malaysia New Zealand Peru Singapore and Vietnam) the U.S. Trade Representative informed Congress that the President intends to commence negotiations with Mexico in the context of the ongoing negotiations of the TPP. The objective of this negotiation is to achieve a high-standard 21st century agreement with a membership and coverage that provides economically significant market access opportunities for America's workers manufacturers service suppliers farmers ranchers and small businesses. The addition of Mexico to the group of TPP negotiating partners will contribute meaningfully to the achievement of these goals. In addition under the Trade Act of 1974 as amended (19 U.S.C. 2151 2153) in the case of an agreement such as the proposed TPP trade agreement the President must (i) afford interestedpersons an opportunity to present their views regarding any matter relevant to the proposed agreement (ii) designate an agency or inter-agency committee to hold a public hearing regarding the proposed agreement and (iii) seek the advice of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) regarding the probable economic effects on U.S. industries and consumers of the removal of tariffs and non-tariff barriers on imports pursuant to the proposed agreement. USTR intends to hold a public hearing on matters related to Mexico's participation in the TPP negotiations on September 21 2012. In addition USTR has requested the ITC to provide advice to USTR on the probable economic effects of including Mexico in a TPP agreement. To assist USTR as it develops its negotiating objectives for the agreement the Trade Policy Subcommittee Chair invites interested persons to submit written comments and/or oral testimony at a public hearing on matters relevant to Mexico's participation in the TPP negotiations. Members of the public who submitted comments in response to the earlier request (76 FR 76479) need not make an additional submission unless the comments are different. Comments and testimony may address the reduction or elimination of tariffs or non-tariff barriers on any articles provided for in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) that are products of Mexico any concession that should be sought by the United States or any other matter relevant to the inclusion of Mexico in the proposed TPP agreement. The TPSC Chair invites comments on all of these matters and in particular seeks comments addressed to: (a) General and product-specific negotiating objectives for Mexico in the context of this proposed regional agreement. (b) Economic costs and benefits to U.S. producers and consumers of removal of tariffs and removal or reduction in non-tariff barriers on articles traded with Mexico. (c) Treatment of specific goods (described by HTSUS numbers) under the proposed regional agreement including comments on— (1) Product-specific import or export interests or barriers (2) experience with particular measures that should be addressed in the negotiations and (3) approach to tariff negotiations including ways to address export priorities and import sensitivities related to Mexico in the context of this regional agreement. (d) Adequacy of existing customs measures to ensure that qualifying imported goods from TPP countries including Mexico receive preferential treatment and appropriate rules of origin for goods entering the United States under the proposed regional agreement. (e) Existing sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technical barriers to trade imposed by Mexico that should be addressed in the negotiations. (f) Existing barriers to trade in services between the United States and Mexico that should be addressed in the negotiations. (g) Relevant electronic commerce issues that should be addressed in the negotiations. (h) Relevant trade-related intellectual property rights issues that should be addressed in the negotiations. (i) Relevant investment issues that should be addressed in the negotiations. (j) Relevant competition-related matters that should be addressed in the negotiations. (k) Relevant government procurement issues that should be addressed in the negotiations. (l) Relevant environmental issues that should be addressed in the negotiations. (m) Relevant labor issues that should be addressed in the negotiations. In addition to the matters described above USTR is addressing new and emerging issues in this proposed regional agreement. Specifically USTR is considering new approaches designed to promote innovation and competitiveness encourage new technologies and emerging economic sectors increase the participation of small- and medium-sized businesses in trade and support the development of efficient production and supply chains that include U.S. firms in order to encourage firms to invest and produce in the United States. The Chair of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TSPC) invites comments regarding how Mexico's participation in the negotiations might affect these new approaches. The TPSC Chair also invites comments on the impact of Mexico's participation in the negotiations on other trade-related priorities in this regional agreement including environmental protection and conservation transparency workers rights and protections development and other issues. USTR has already provided notice and requested comments on the scope for an environmental review of the proposed TPP trade agreement (see 75 FR 14470 March 25 2010). As described above the present notice invites comments on among other topics environmental issues to be addressed in the TPP negotiations to take into account Mexico's participation in the negotiation. Further comments are also invited on the environmental review including possible changes in the scope or other issues that should be addressed in the review. At a later date USTR through the TPSC will publish notice of reviews regarding the impact of the proposed agreement on U.S. employment and labor markets. These reviews will take into account Mexico's participation in the negotiations. </source> [/INST] <claim>Mexico will say yes to gain participation</claim> <psg>comments on negotiating objectives with respect to Mexico's participation in the ongoing negotiations of a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and notice of public hearing. The United States intends to commence negotiations with Mexico as part of the ongoing negotiations of a TPP trade agreement. Mexico's participation in the TPP negotiations in order to develop U.S. negotiating positions. having reached consensus on Mexico's participation with the other TPP negotiating partners President intends to commence negotiations with Mexico in the context of the ongoing negotiations of the TPP. economically significant market access opportunities for America's workers manufacturers service suppliers farmers ranchers and small businesses. The addition of Mexico to the group of TPP negotiating partners will contribute meaningfully to the achievement of these goals. designate an agency or inter-agency committee to hold a public hearing regarding the proposed agreement and (iii) seek the advice of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) regarding the probable economic effects on U.S. industries and consumers of the removal of tariffs and non-tariff barriers on imports pursuant to the proposed agreement. Mexico's participation in the TPP negotiations Comments and testimony may address the reduction or elimination of tariffs or non-tariff barriers Economic costs and benefits to U.S. producers and consumers Product-specific import or export interests or barriers Relevant environmental issues that should be addressed in the negotiations. invites comments regarding how Mexico's participation in the negotiations might affect these new approaches. The TPSC Chair also invites comments on the impact of Mexico's participation in the negotiations on other trade-related priorities in this regional agreement including environmental protection and conservation transparency workers rights and protections development and other issues. requested comments on the scope for an environmental review of the proposed TPP trade agreement environmental issues to be addressed in the TPP negotiations to take into account Mexico's participation in the negotiation These reviews will take into account Mexico's participation in 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> Recently Mexico was invited to participate in talks which could culminate in its entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This proposed free trade area in the Asia-Pacific Region currently has nine nations on board (Australia Brunei Chile Malaysia New Zealand Peru Singapore Vietnam and the United States) and aims to “enhance trade and investment among the TPP partner countries promote innovation economic growth and development and support the creation and retention of jobs.” </source> [/INST] <claim>Involving Mexico in TPP negotiations expands organized crime – causes widespread instability</claim> <psg>Mexico was invited to participate in talks which could culminate in its entry into 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 Trans Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (or TPP for short) is currently being negotiated in secret with hundreds of corporate lobbyists “advising” on the largest regional free trade agreement the U.S. has ever seen. Multinational pharmaceutical companies are driving an agenda that would deny affordable AIDS drugs to people in Asia and Latin America. It’s part of a broader power-grab to shut down production of generic AIDS medicines globally and the Obama administration is acting as a pharmapuppet in support! The biggest drug companies job-killing corporations major global banks and agribusiness giants want this deal to be another corporate power tool that could eventually include every Pacific Rim nation from Vietnam and Thailand to Mexico and Russia. The proposed deal would halt generic production of AIDS drugs plus drive down wages environmental standards and Wall Street regulation! </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP would deny the production of AIDS drugs </claim> <psg>The Trans Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (or TPP for short) is currently being negotiated in secret with hundreds of corporate lobbyists “advising” on the largest regional free trade agreement the U.S. has ever seen. pharmaceutical companies are driving an agenda that would deny affordable AIDS drugs to people in Asia and Latin America. power-grab to shut down production of generic AIDS medicines globally the Obama administration is acting as a pharmapuppet in suppo The biggest drug companies job-killing corporations major global banks and agribusiness giants want this deal to be another corporate power tool that could eventually include every Pacific Rim nation from Vietnam and Thailand to Mexico and Russia. The proposed deal would halt generic production of AIDS drugs plus drive down wages environmental standards and Wall Street regulation!</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> Deaths from AIDS continued to decline last year as the number of people on HIV drugs worldwide surged 21 percent from 2010 according to a report that found poor and middle income countries spent more on treatment. Deaths dropped 5.6 percent to 1.7 million in 2011 from the previous year as 8 million people in developing regions gained access to medicines that fight the infection according to a reporttoday from UNAIDS the United Nations’ program to treat and prevent the illness. In Sub-SaharaAfrica where 69 percent of people with HIV live the number on therapy jumped to 6.2 million from 100 000 in 2003. “There is still a huge gap from where we should be but the world is doing better ” said Mitchell Warren executive director of AVAC: Global Advocacy for HIV Prevention in a telephone interview. “The big story is no longer about the science. it is about the money and politics. The two biggest questions now are where is the money coming from and where is it going to go.” About 7 million people infected with HIV in low income countries still need drugs and don’t get them the report said. Global health experts are now talking about getting millions more people on medications based on recent data showing that early treatment can prevent transmission of the AIDS virus. One concern is how to pay for it as the U.S. and some European nations tighten foreign aid. </source> [/INST] <claim>AIDS drugs are key to stop the spread</claim> <psg>Deaths from AIDS continued to decline last year as the number of people on HIV drugs worldwide surged 21 percent from 2010 Deaths dropped 5.6 percent to 1.7 million in 2011 from the previous year as 8 million people in developing regions gained access to medicines that fight the infection according to a reporttoday from UNAIDS the United Nations’ program to treat and prevent the illness There is still a huge gap from where we should be but the world is doing better The big story is no longer about the science. it is about the money and politics. The two biggest questions now are where is the money coming from and where is it going to go.” About 7 million people infected with HIV in low income countries still need drugs and don’t get them the report said. Global health experts are now talking about getting millions more people on medications based on recent data showing that early treatment can prevent transmission of the AIDS virus. One concern is how to pay for it as the U.S. and some European nations tighten foreign aid.</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 pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases new viral strains are constantly emerging — a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS mainly due to HIV’s rapid and constant evolution. Specifically two factors account for the virus’s abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIV’s use of reverse transcriptase which does not have a proof-reading mechanism and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily though there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself and AIDS itself does not kill directly but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly this lag time could potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic ” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10). </source> [/INST] <claim>An AIDS pandemic will cause extinction</claim> <psg>A pandemic will kill off all humans. humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases new viral strains are constantly emerging AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS HIV’s use of reverse transcriptase which does not have a proof-reading mechanism and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). However for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cur Since influenza can spread quickly this lag time could potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic ” Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10).</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 August 2012 Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders noted that the 19th International AIDS Conference 'illuminated the profound contradiction' between the U.S. government's goal of 'an AIDS-free generation' and 'some of the U.S. government’s trade policies.' MSF noted the need to make antiretroviral therapy available to 'more than 7 million people still in need of urgent treatment.' To achieve this MSF said 'antiretroviral drugs need to be available at affordable prices.' But MSF said USTR is 'promoting restrictive trade policies that would make it much harder for patients governments and treatment providers like MSF to access price-lowering generic drugs.' Leaked drafts of the TPP agreement MSF said 'outline U.S. aggressive intellectual property demands that that could severely restrict access to affordable life-saving medicines for millions of people… the U.S. is asking countries to create new enhanced and longer patent and data monopoly protections for multinational pharmaceutical companies so they can keep competitors out of the market and charge higher prices for longer.' </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP would stop the occurrence of an AIDS-free generation through restrictive trade policies</claim> <psg>Doctors Without Borders noted that the 19th International AIDS Conference 'illuminated the profound contradiction' between the U.S. government's goal of 'an AIDS-free generation' and 'some of the U.S. government’s trade policies.' antiretroviral therapy available to 'more than 7 million people still in need of urgent treatment.' antiretroviral drugs need to be available at affordable prices.' 'promoting restrictive trade policies that would make it much harder for patients governments and treatment providers like MSF to access price-lowering generic drugs. TPP agreement MSF said 'outline U.S. aggressive intellectual property demands that that could severely restrict access to affordable life-saving medicines for millions of people… multinational pharmaceutical companies so they can keep competitors out of the market and charge higher prices for longer.'</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> To accept that the snail darter harelip sucker or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew 74 could save [hu]mankind may be difficult for some. Many if not most species are useless to[hu]man[s] in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless they may be critical in an indirect role because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. 75 Moreover as the number of species decline the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. 77 As the current mass extinction has progressed the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 [*173] Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. 'The more complex the ecosystem the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net in which each knot is connected to others by several strands such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole.' 79 By causing widespread extinctions humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically each new animal or plant extinction with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing one by one the rivets from an aircraft's wings 80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss. </source> [/INST] <claim>Biodiversity collapse will lead to an invisible threshold of destruction </claim> <psg>Many if not most species are useless to[hu]man[s] in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless they may be critical in an indirect role because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. 75 Moreover as the number of species decline the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. Theoretically each new animal or plant extinction with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing one by one the rivets from an aircraft's wings 80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss. </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 problem with these environmental efforts is that international law of any kind is inherently weak due to the sovereignty each country possesses. International environmental law is especially hard to implement and enforce because of the lack of incentives. Environmental law runs into the tragedy of the commons dilemma where countries acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest will pollute and deplete the environment despite knowing that doing so is contrary to their long-term best interests. Yet even if this dilemma is attempted to be avoided through treaties or other agreements free-riding becomes an issue as well when countries who decide not to join environmental agreements still reap the benefits of those agreements without paying the costs. Therefore any environmental provisions that are agreed upon are likely to be inadequate to addressing the environmental issue. Furthermore enforcement of these laws is another enormous problem. The competing capitalist nature of nations encourages the limited enforcement of any type of international law that would negatively affect GDP. As environmental law poses a direct threat to the short terms gains of countries many nations are unwilling to enforce international environment law absent any incentives or enforcement measures. If a country fails to adhere to environmental law there must be consequences. Yet if the consequences are too harsh then countries will not engage in environmental agreements at all. For example the Kyoto Protocol which was organized to create binding obligations on the industrialized countries to reduce their GHG emissions was signed but never ratified by the United States and was withdrawn from by Canada.179 There were certain provisions in the Protocol with which the United States Congress disagreed and to which they declined to adhere.180 This is not the first time the United States has signed but failed to ratify a treaty. the United States has made habit of signing but not ratifying treaties.181 Scholars believe there are currently 10 treaties the United States has signed but not ratified that would improve global environmental protection.182 With all the factors working against strong and effective environmental agreements any opportunity for countries to enact effective environmental laws should be taken which is why it is imperative that the TPP contain strong environmental provisions. </source> [/INST] <claim>Even if the TPP includes environmental regulations they will fail </claim> <psg>The problem with these environmental efforts is that international law of any kind is inherently weak due to the sovereignty each country possesses International environmental law is especially hard to implement and enforce because of the lack of incentives. Environmental law runs into the tragedy of the commons dilemma where countries acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest will pollute and deplete the environment despite knowing that doing so is contrary to their long-term best interests free-riding becomes an issue as well when countries who decide not to join environmental agreements still reap the benefits of those agreements without paying the costs. any environmental provisions that are agreed upon are likely to be inadequate to addressing the environmental issue. If a country fails to adhere to environmental law there must be consequences. Yet if the consequences are too harsh then countries will not engage in environmental agreements at all This is not the first time the United States has signed but failed to ratify a treaty. the United States has made habit of signing but not ratifying treaties.181 Scholars believe there are currently 10 treaties the United States has signed but not ratified that would improve global environmental protection.182</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> Unfortunately for the environment and our future strong environmental provisions that include real enforcement measures are not likely to be included in the TPP. The TPP is a very expansive document and so environmental concerns are not a high priority for many of the countries that want to focus on strengthening the economy. The United States and other countries’ main priority may be to marginalize China’s influence in the area and therefore they would be willing to exclude strong environmental provisions in order to reach an agreement. Additionally the sheer number of countries involved makes detailed environmental provisions and standards hard to manage and the public has had little say or influence over the document due to its secrecy in negotiations. The likelihood of substantial new environmental provisions making their way into the TPP is not great. Most of the proposed additions to the TPP in this comment are not being considered in negotiations and represent significant changes to past free trade agreements. If there was more public awareness regarding the TPP perhaps proposed provisions such as these could gain more traction but as it stands the TPP has not received the level of press that should be associated with such an important document. As a result while the Trans-Pacific Partnership does not pose a large threat to the environment it is unlikely to be the environmental savior that is severely needed. Therefore we must hope for the sake of present and future generations that world leaders implement impactful environmental law before it is too late. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP will not include environmental provisions</claim> <psg>Unfortunately for the environment and our future strong environmental provisions that include real enforcement measures are not likely to be included in the TPP. environmental concerns are not a high priority for many of the countries that want to focus on strengthening the economy The United States and other countries’ main priority may be to marginalize China’s influence in the area and therefore they would be willing to exclude strong environmental provisions in order to reach an agreement. the public has had little say or influence over the document due to its secrecy in negotiations Most of the proposed additions to the TPP in this comment are not being considered in negotiations the TPP has not received the level of press that should be associated with such an important document. . Therefore we must hope for the sake of present and future generations that world leaders implement impactful environmental law before it is too late.</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 real lack of public and political awareness of these issues ' says Alex Rogers professor of conservation biology at the UK's Oxford University. 'They're too big to understand in economic terms. We can put a value on the loss of fishing but how can we put a value on oxygen production or the absorption of carbon dioxide?' he says. The problem is that most of the world's ocean is located outside of international law and legal control. Any attempts to implement rules and regulation come with the problem of enforcement says Rogers who is also scientific director of the International Program on State of the Ocean (IPSO). </source> [/INST] <claim>Regulations on the environment will fail – no enforcement</claim> <psg>There's a real lack of public and political awareness of these issues says Alex Rogers professor of conservation biology at the UK's Oxford University We can put a value on the loss of fishing but how can we put a value on oxygen production or the absorption of carbon dioxide?' the world's ocean is located outside of international law and legal control. implement rules and regulation come with the problem of enforcement says Rogers who is also scientific director of the International Program on State of the Ocean (IPSO).</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> Wildlife conservation and illegal logging are additional environmental concerns that could be address through the TPP as member countries contain primary trading routes for some of the world’s greatest concentrations of biological diversity in animal and plant species.168 Illegal trade in wildlife endangers species and destroys wildlife and can cause the spread of disease as well as the undesirable effects of organized crime.169 Worldwide illegal trade in wildlife generates anywhere from $10 to 20 billion annually and is especially prevalent in TPP members countries such as Peru Chile and those in Southeast Asia.170 Illegal logging is a problem in TPP countries as well and occurs when protected logging areas or endangered species of trees logging without the necessary permits and logging in protected areas.171 Illegal loggings contribute to forest degradation and accounts for 5% to 10% of global timber production with annual losses estimated at roughly $10 billion.172 The United States is one of the world’s largest timber product consumers and top importers of tropical hardwoods of which a significant portion is illegally logged.173 Peru is one of those sources of illegally logged timber while Malaysia and Vietnam engage in smuggling and laundering of illegal logged timber and timber products.174 </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP will destroy the environment – trading routes and illegal logging</claim> <psg>Wildlife conservation and illegal logging are additional environmental concerns that could be address through the TPP trading routes for some of the world’s greatest concentrations of biological diversity in animal and plant species Illegal trade in wildlife endangers species and destroys wildlife and can cause the spread of disease as well as the undesirable effects of organized crime. illegal trade in wildlife generates anywhere from $10 to 20 billion annually and is especially prevalent in TPP n TPP countries as well and occurs when protected logging areas or endangered species of trees The United States is one of the world’s largest timber product consumers and top importers of tropical hardwoods of which a significant portion is illegally logged.173 Peru is one of those sources of illegally logged timber while Malaysia and Vietnam engage in smuggling and laundering of illegal logged timber and timber products.174</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> Trade officials from twelve Pacific Rim nations—Australia Brunei Canada Chile Japan Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Peru Singapore the United States and Vietnam— are in intensive closed-door negotiations to sign a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in 2013. Every Pacific Rim nation from China to Russia could eventually be included. There are draft texts for many of this pact’s 29 chapters most of which have nothing to do with trade but rather impose limits on domestic food safety health environmental and other policies. The governments won’t release the texts to the public. But about 600 U.S. corporate “trade advisors” have full access. America’s worst job-offshoring corporations global banks agribusiness and pharmaceutical giants want this deal to be another corporate power tool like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Consumer labor environmental and other public interest advocates want a transparent process and a “Fair Deal or No Deal.” A major goal of U.S. multinational corporations for the TPP is to impose on more countries a set of extreme foreign investor privileges and rights and their private enforcement through the notorious “investor-state” system. This system allows foreign corporations to challenge before international tribunals national environmental land use health and other laws and regulations that apply to domestic and foreign firms alike. Outrageously this regime elevates individual corporations and investors to equal standing with each TPP signatory country’s government – and above all of us citizens. This regime empowers corporations to skirt national courts and sue our governments before tribunals of private sector lawyers operating under UN and World Bank rules to demand taxpayer compensation for domestic regulatory policies that investors believe diminish their “expected future profits.” Many of these regulatory policies are designed for environmental protection. For example in 2012 the U.S. Lone Pine company launched a $250 million NAFTA investor-state case against a Canadian ban on fracking. If a corporation “wins ” the taxpayers of the “losing” country must foot the bill. Over $380 million in compensation has already been paid out to corporations in a series of investor-state cases under NAFTA-style deals alone. This includes attacks on natural resource policies toxics bans zoning and permits health and safety measures and more. In fact of the nearly $14 billion in the 18 claims now pending under NAFTA-style deals all relate to environmental public health and transportation policy – not traditional trade issues. Governments have paid out over $3 billion to investors in investor-state disputes under U.S. FTAs and bilateral investment treaties (BITs) – over 85 percent of this related to oil mining gas and other environmental and natural resource disputes. A review of just some of the outrageous anti-environment cases brought under this system highlights the extreme peril of these radical investor privileges and their investor-state private enforcement being included in the TPP: Renco Group Inc. a company owned by one of the richest men in America invested in a metal smelter in La Oroya Peru. The site has been designated as in the top 10 most polluted in the world. The firm has been sued in U.S. court on behalf of severely lead-poisoned children in La Oroya. Sulfur dioxide concentrations at La Oroya greatly exceed international standards with sulfur dioxide levels doubled in the years after Renco’s acquisition of the complex. Renco’s Peruvian subsidiary promised to install sulfur plants by 2007 as part of an environmental remediation program. Although it was out of compliance with its contractual obligations the company sought (and Peru granted) two extraordinary extensions to complete the project. In December 2010 Renco sent Peru a Notice of Intent that it was launching a U.S.-Peru FTA investor-state attack alleging that Peru’s failure to grant a third extension of the remediation obligations constituted a violation of the firm’s FTA foreign investor rights. The company is demanding $800 million in compensation from Peruvian taxpayers. The Renco case illustrates two deeply worrying implications of investor-state arbitration. Even the mere threat of a case can put pressure on governments to weaken environment and health policies. Recent developments suggest that the threat of this case was highly effective. While full environmental compliance has yet to be seen the government has allowed the smelter to restart zinc and lead operations. That would be bad enough but Renco is also attempting to evade justice in U.S. domestic courts through the investor-state mechanism. Renco has now successfully argued that the U.S. lawsuit filed on behalf of La Oroya’s children must be removed from a U.S. state court where it had a decent chance of success. Renco tried to derail the case this way three times before without success. But after filing the investorstate case the firm claimed that the matter now involved an international treaty and thus was outside the state court’s remit. In January 2011 the same federal judge who rejected the past attempts determined that the existence of the investor-state case made this a federal issue and allowed Renco to terminate the state court case. An unprecedented ruling in the 18-year struggle of Ecuadorean indigenous people to force Chevron to clean up horrific toxic contamination in a swath of the Amazon the size of Rhode Island provides a chilling glimpse of how corporations can use international investor tribunals in “trade” agreements to evade justice. After 18 years of losing in U.S. and Ecuadorean courts and endless delay tactics Chevron was ordered by an Ecuadorean court to pay $18 billion for cleanup and punitive damages. An appellate court affirmed the decision in January 2012. Chevron turned to an ad hoc “investor-state” tribunal under the U.S.- Ecuador BIT as the last chance to evade justice. In February that tribunal ordered Ecuador’s government to interfere with the country’s independent court system to halt enforcement of the ruling even though it had not even determined that it has jurisdiction over the case. The case stems from damage caused to 30 000 indigenous people in the Amazon by Texaco which operated in Ecuador from 1964 to 1992 and was purchased by Chevron in 2001. During this time the company admits that it dumped more than 16 billion gallons of toxic water into streams and rivers used by local inhabitants for drinking water. The trial included dozens of technical reports containing evidence of open pits of toxic waste and severe health problems among residents. An Ecuadorean court rejected the tribunal’s order. However the ad hoc panel may still prevent the clean-up from starting as its ruling may be recognized by other countries whose cooperation is needed to collect the $18 billion from Chevron which has no assets in Ecuador now. Pacific Rim Mining Corp. (a Canadian-based multinational firm also known as Pac Rim) made plans to expand into El Salvador in the 2000s as the price of gold was climbing. Pac Rim’s plan is for an underground mine and the use of a process employing large amounts of water and cyanide to extract gold from the ore it excavated. For decades there had been no large scale gold mining in El Salvador a densely populated country with limited clean water supplies. In a country only recently recovered from civil war opposition to cyanide-leach gold mining united the population. Right and left party presidents pledged to review mining policy citing the negative health impacts and threats to scarce water resources. Meanwhile Pac Rim never completed various studies required to apply for the license to operate the mine and halted its operations. However it also reincorporated in the U.S. and months later launched an attack on El Salvador’s mining policies under the U.S.-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The firm is demanding $200 million in compensation from the Salvadoran people whose average annual income is $7 200. In 2012 the investor-state tribunal determined on very narrow grounds that the case was outside CAFTA’s jurisdiction. Though Pac Rim is a Canadian firm according to the tribunal the company could have used CAFTA by merely filing proper ownership papers for its U.S. subsidiary. As the case now proceeds at World Bank-based hearings El Salvador’s mining policy remains unresolved and violence has killed four anti-mining activists.In a similar NAFTA case Mexico was ordered to pay the U.S. Metalclad Corporation $15.6 million after a Mexican municipality refused to grant the firm a construction permit for a toxic waste facility unless it cleaned up existing toxic waste problems. The facility had been closed when it was owned by a Mexican firm from which Metalclad acquired the facility in a transaction that specifically noted the clean up condition for obtaining a permit. The NAFTA tribunal ruled that Mexico violated NAFTA’s “minimum standard of treatment” guaranteed foreign investors because the firm was not granted a “clear and predictable” regulatory environment. It also ruled that a provincial ecological decree amounted to an indirect expropriation or what is sometimes called a regulatory taking. There are even outrageous investor-state cases between TPP negotiating parties including recent attacks by U.S. investors on Vietnam’s land use policies and on Peru’s oil gas and mining policies. But such challenges are not all brought by developed country investors. In 1996 after a four-day visit to the country and minimal due diligence MTD (a set of Malaysian investors) decided to build a whole new planned community outside of Santiago Chile. But to do this they needed to get authorization from both Chile’s foreign investment authorities and its environmental zoning authorities. As is common in many countries foreign investment authorities are tasked with considering the impact of foreign inflows on a country’s balance of payments. But all developers – national and foreign – have to comply with zoning rules which are administered by authorities with a whole different set of objectives and expertise. Although MTD passed the first hurdle in April 1997 Chile’s zoning authorities promptly started sounding concerns about the ecological impact of the development. In 2004 an investor-state tribunal ordered Chile to pay nearly $6 million to MTD even though the tribunal noted that the investors themselves had not conducted due diligence. To reach this conclusion the tribunal used the most favored nation provisions of a Malaysia-Chile investment treaty to import a so -called “fair and equitable treatment” provision from a Croatia-Chile bilateral investment treaty and said that this provision requires government to act “as a monolith.” This type of uniformity in policymaking is not remotely possible for TPP nations many of which have multiple agencies of government at the national state and local levels. There are serious questions as to whether this type of uniformity is even desirable since different agencies may have different objectives to fulfill. The anti-environment cases don’t end there.  S.D. Myers a U.S. waste treatment company challenged a temporary Canadian ban of PCB exports that complied with a multilateral environmental treaty on toxic-waste trade. An investor-state tribunal ruled in the company’s favor awarding $5 million.  A U.S. timber company challenged Canada’s implementation of the 1996 U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement. The tribunal dismissed the company’s claims of expropriation and discrimination but held that the rude behavior of the Canadian government officials seeking to verify the firm’s compliance with the lumber agreement constituted a violation of the “minimum standard of treatment” required by NAFTA for foreign investors. The panel also stated that a foreign firm’s “market access” in another country could be considered a NAFTA-protected investment.  A U.S. chemical company called Ethyl Corporation challenged a Canadian environmental ban of the gasoline additive MMT under NAFTA’s investor-state provisions. Although the panel made no ruling on the merits the Canadian government revoked the ban and settled for $13 million in taxpayer compensation.  Even when a tribunal rules in favor of governments on the merits governments risk great expense. Methanex a Canadian corporation produced methanol a component chemical of the gasoline additive MTBE. The company challenged California’s phase-out of the additive which was contaminating drinking water sources around the state. The company lost on the merits and was even ordered to pay the federal government’s legal expenses. But the State of California had also expended significant sums on the case and it remains to be seen if the state’s attorneys will be compensated for their time. The investor-state system is so extreme that it is losing whatever small political support it ever had. Australia has said it will not include investor-state in its trade deals. South Africa and India are among the countries now conducting critical reviews of the regime. Brazil has always refused it. Latin American countries are pulling out of various arbitration agreements that provide venues for these private corporate attacks. President Obama even campaigned against this system! But career bureaucrats and big business want to stay the course by expanding the extreme system through the TPP no matter the cost. </source> [/INST] <claim>The aff allows for environmental degradation – Mexico is pulling out the TPP in the status quo only the aff reinvigorates environmental destruction </claim> <psg>are draft texts for many of this pact’s 29 chapters most of which have nothing to do with trade but rather impose limits on domestic food safety health environmental and other policies. America’s worst job-offshoring corporations global banks agribusiness and pharmaceutical giants want this deal to be another corporate power tool like the North American Free Trade Agreement multinational corporations for the TPP is to impose on more countries a set of extreme foreign investor privileges and rights and their private enforcement through the notorious “investor-state” system This system allows foreign corporations to challenge before international tribunals national environmental land use health and other laws and regulations that apply to domestic and foreign firms alike. each TPP signatory country’s government – and above all of us citizens. This regime empowers corporations to skirt national courts and sue our governments before tribunals of private sector lawyers operating under UN and World Bank rules to demand taxpayer compensation for domestic regulatory policies that investors believe diminish their “expected future profits This includes attacks on natural resource policies toxics bans zoning and permits health and safety measures and more. In fact of the nearly $14 billion in the 18 claims now pending under NAFTA-style deals all relate to environmental public health and transportation policy – not traditional trade issues. percent of this related to oil mining gas and other environmental and natural resource disputes A review of just some of the outrageous anti-environment cases brought under this system highlights the extreme peril of these radical investor privileges Although it was out of compliance with its contractual obligations the company two extraordinary extensions to complete the project The Renco case illustrates two deeply worrying implications of investor-state arbitration. Even the mere threat of a case can put pressure on governments to weaken environment and health policie That would be bad enough but Renco is also attempting to evade justice in U.S. domestic courts through the investor-state mechanism. Renco has now successfully argued that the U.S. lawsuit filed on behalf of La Oroya’s children must be removed from a U.S. state court where it had a decent chance of success. Renco tried to derail the case this way three times before without success. investor tribunals in “trade” agreements to evade justice. After 18 years of losing in U.S. and Ecuadorean courts and endless delay tactics Chevron was ordered by an Ecuadorean court to pay $18 billion for cleanup and punitive damages. During this time the company admits that it dumped more than 16 billion gallons of toxic water into streams and rivers used by local inhabitants for drinking water. The trial included dozens of technical reports containing evidence of open pits of toxic waste and severe health problems among residents Pacific Rim Mining Corp made plans to expand into El Salvador in the 2000s as the price of gold was climbing Pac Rim’s plan is for an underground mine and the use of a process employing large amounts of water and cyanide to extract gold from the ore Mexico was ordered to pay the U.S. Metalclad Corporation $15.6 million after a Mexican municipality refused to grant the firm a construction permit for a toxic waste facility unless it cleaned up existing toxic waste problems. The facility had been closed when it was owned by a Mexican firm from which Metalclad acquired the facility in a transaction that specifically noted the clean up condition for obtaining a permit. that Mexico violated NAFTA’s “minimum standard of treatment” guaranteed foreign investors because the firm was not granted a “clear and predictable” regulatory environment This type of uniformity in policymaking is not remotely possible for TPP nations many of which have multiple agencies of government at the national state and local levels. There are serious questions as to whether this type of uniformity is even desirable since different agencies may have different objectives to fulfill. The anti-environment cases don’t end there. Latin American countries are pulling out of various arbitration agreements that provide venues for these private corporate attacks. expanding the extreme system through the TPP no matter the cost.</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 movement of organisms among continents by humans has caused profound changes in the ecology of relocated species and of communities to which they have been introduced. Perhaps less than 1% of all species that arrive at foreign shores become invaders (Williamson and Fitter 1996) but the few that explode in abundance wreak tremendous environmental and economic damage (Mack et al. 2000. Pimentel et al. 2000. Xu et al. 2006). During the last decade research on invasive species has dramatically increased. For example from 1988 to 1990 the journal Ecology published three papers with the words ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’ in their title or abstract that related to exotics. From 1998 to 2000 this number increased to 14. However the focus of the increasing volume of research on exotic invaders has been primarily on the exchange of species between North America and Europe. Of the 14 papers on exotic invasions published in Ecology from 1998 to 2000 seven involved Europe–North America invasions and all primary empirical research focused on at least one species from Europe or North America. Two focused on a species moving to or from Asia and North America. The focus on North America and Europe may be driven by the unusually high numbers of organisms moved between these regions in the last few centuries (or to the unusually high numbers of ecologists) but regardless of why the historic focus has been on North America and Europe future research on invasive species may shift to include those coming from and going to eastern Asia (Normile 2004). As pointed out by Jenkins and Mooney (2006) trade between the United States and China has mushroomed from $200 million in 1978 to over $6 billion in 2002. This increase in trade is highly likely to increase accidental invasions of organisms between North America and eastern Asia a problem that will be difficult to solve. However many invasive plant species appear to have been introduced intentionally for horticulture agriculture or forestry. and these invasions can be prevented by a farsighted and proactive policy. Increased trade is not the only reason for concern about new trans-Pacific invasions. The probability that the introduction of organisms will result in new invasions is exacerbated because eastern Asia and North America also have similar latitudes and climates and therefore share many biomes and taxa (Guo 2002). Because rapidly growing trade between East Asia and North America also increases the probability of new trans-Pacific invasions it is imperative to accelerate research designed to predict which species will invade and which ecosystems are vulnerable to understand the mechanisms by which species transform into overwhelming competitive dominants and to develop policy for preventing invasions and economic risk analysis for invasive species. This growing threat of exchanging invaders between eastern Asia and North America was addressed at the 2004 Beijing International Symposium on Biological Invasions titled ‘Species Exchanges Between Eastern Asia and North America: Threats to Environment and Economy’. About 100 scientists from academia governmental agencies and other organizations from both regions focused on the current status of species exchange of trans-Pacific invasions (Liu et al. 2006. Xu et al. 2006. Kohli et al. 2006) predicting and preventing invasions (Erhenfeld 2006. Williamson 2006. Wu et al. 2006) eliminating invaders understanding invasions (Alpert 2006. Guo 2006. Kitijami et al. 2006. Liu and Stiling 2006. Wang et al. 2006) and developing policy recommendations (Jenkins and Mooney 2006) and management approaches (Gu 2006). This special feature was motivated in part by the outcome of the symposium. Although only a start this special feature provides an initial model for international collaborations information sharing (Simpson et al. 2006) and bilateral efforts to stem the increase in exotic invasions. There were 283 invasive alien species in China including microorganisms plants invertebrates amphibians reptiles fish and mammals (Xu et al. 2006). Over 50% of these invasive species originated from North America (e.g. common ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia and annual fleabane Erigeron annuus). The total economic losses caused by invasive alien species to China were $14.45 billion in 2000 with direct and indirect economic losses accounting for 17 and 83% of total economic losses respectively. Yet much more (ca. 800) plant species introduced from eastern Asia to North America have established including the most notable invasives such as Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum) kudzu (Pueraria lobata) saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis) and two large carp species (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix and nobilis) that leap out of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers and injure boaters (Normile 2004). Predicting future invasions has proved to be exceptionally difficult (Williamson 2006) but without some level of predictive ability developing sound policy for restricting entry of particular species may be elusive. Classifying invaders by taxonomic relationships or by shared suite of traits has been helpful but there are many exceptions to the rule so many exceptions that prediction is quite inaccurate (Mack et al. 2000). In this feature Williamson argues that looking for universal attributes and causes of invasions is not profitable because invasions can go through a series of stages and the important factors are often different at each. When a cause has been found for a particular part of a set of invasions it is important to distinguish between explanation (relatively easy) and prediction (much harder). Erhenfeld (2006) proposes that screening for novel plant secondary chemistry may be a useful predictive tool and collaborations among new groups of scientists may help us to predict new invasives. Preventing invasions ultimately will be determined by policy makers. As argued by Mooney and Jenkins in this feature we are much better at determining whether a species proposed for import will invade. They suggest the adoption of a ‘clean list’ policy in which only approved species can be allowed to enter. As trade and transportation of species increases among the countries of North America and eastern Asia we may have the opportunity to develop preemptive policy based on collaborative science between the regions rather than the retroactive responses once invasives have already established and spread. Eliminating invaders may prove to be the most difficult and in most cases perhaps impossible task of all. The apparent permanence of many invasive species emphasizes the crucial necessity of good importation policies. Furthermore rapid collaborative responses toward eradication of invaders must occur if we are to eliminate invaders before they become thoroughly naturalized. Again explicit collaborative efforts among scientists in different continents such as modeled in this feature may allow much more rapid responses than in the past. Scientific responses may included the rapid development of herbicides identification of host-specific and effective biological control agents (Ding et al. 2006) or simply a level of awareness promoting elimination of small populations before they spread. Despite the fact that exotic invasions can result in astounding ecological changes we do not know why they occur. The oldest and most widely accepted hypothesis is that invaders have escaped consumers predators herbivores or pathogens that control them in their native habitat. But clear evidence for such escape from such powerful top–down regulation is scarce and invasions appear to have other causes such as response to human disturbance occupation of empty niches or the possession of novel biochemical weapons (Hierro et al. 2005. Kohli 2006). Relative to North America the ecological and economic impact of exotics in eastern Asia is lower but on the rise (Li and Wilcove 2005). One of the reasons for the Beijing symposium is that although studies on invasives in China are relatively recent some good progresses have been made. Therefore it is now feasible to make some meaningful comparisons in both research and invasives management between North America and eastern Asia. We hope that future collaborations among scientists in eastern Asia and North America such as initiated in this special feature will shed light on the nature of exotic invasions </source> [/INST] <claim>Increased trade with the trans-pacific will cause an influx in invasive species killing biodiversity and the economy</claim> <psg>The movement of organisms among continents by humans has caused profound changes in the ecology of relocated species and of communities to which they have been introduced. arrive at foreign shores become invaders ) but the few that explode in abundance wreak tremendous environmental and economic damage Ecology published three papers with the words ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’ in their title or abstract that related to exotics primarily on the exchange of species between North America and Europe future research on invasive species may shift to include those coming from and going to eastern Asia This increase in trade is highly likely to increase accidental invasions of organisms between North America and eastern Asia a problem that will be difficult to solve many invasive plant species appear to have been introduced intentionally for horticulture agriculture or forestry. and these invasions can be prevented by a farsighted and proactive policy Increased trade is not the only reason for concern about new trans-Pacific invasions Because rapidly growing trade between East Asia and North America also increases the probability of new trans-Pacific invasion it is imperative to accelerate research designed to predict which species will invade and which ecosystems are vulnerable and to develop policy for preventing invasions and economic risk analysis for invasive species. This growing threat of exchanging invaders between eastern Asia and North America was addressed at the 2004 Beijing Threats to Environment and Economy This special feature was motivated in part by the outcome of the symposium. China including microorganisms plants invertebrates amphibians reptiles fish and mammals (Xu et al. 2006). Over 50% of these invasive species originated from North America e The total economic losses caused by invasive alien species to China were $14.45 billion in 2000 this feature Williamson argues that looking for universal attributes and causes of invasions is not profitable because invasions can go through a series of stages and the important factors are often different at each. Preventing invasions ultimately will be determined by policy makers. They suggest the adoption of a ‘clean list’ policy in which only approved species can be allowed to enter. As trade and transportation of species increases among the countries of North America and eastern Asia we may have the opportunity to develop preemptive policy based on collaborative science between the regions rather than the retroactive responses once invasives have already established and spread. Again explicit collaborative efforts among scientists in different continents such as modeled in this feature may allow much more rapid responses than in the past But clear evidence for such escape from such powerful top–down regulation is scarce and invasions appear to have other causes such as response to human disturbance occupation of empty niches or the possession of novel biochemical weapons Relative to North America the ecological and economic impact of exotics in eastern Asia is lower but on the rise Therefore it is now feasible to make some meaningful comparisons in both research and invasives management between North America and eastern Asia. We hope that future collaborations among scientists in eastern Asia and North America such as initiated in this special feature will shed light on the nature of exotic invasions</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 many ways in which the introduction of non-native or exotic species negatively affects our environment and the diversity of life on our planet. The statistics are startling and more attention must be paid to the problem and devising a solution before the cost is more than we can bear. Invasive species cause more damage than some pollutants. Almost half of the native species in America are endangered because of invasive species. Compared to other threats to biodiversity invasive introduced species rank second only to habitat destruction such as forest clearing. Of all 1 880 imperiled species in the United States 49% are endangered because of introduced species alone or because of their impact combined with other forces. In fact introduced species are a greater threat to native biodiversity than pollution harvest and disease combined. Further through damage to agriculture forestry fisheries and other human enterprises introduced species inflict an enormous economic cost estimated at $137 billion per year to the U.S. economy alone. Of course some introduced species (such as most of our food crops and pets) are beneficial. However others are very damaging. Introduced species are not good guests The greatest impact is caused by introduced species that change an entire habitat because many native species thrive only in a particular habitat. Florida’s fires are fueled by a tree imported from Australia. When the Asian chestnut blight fungus virtually eliminated American chestnut from over 180 million acres of eastern United States forests in the first half of the 20th century it was a disaster for many animals that were highly adapted to live in forests dominated by this tree species. For example ten moth species that could live only on chestnut trees became extinct. Similarly the Australian paperbark tree has replaced native plants such as sawgrass over 400 000 acres of south Florida because it has a combination of traits (for example spongy outer bark and flammable leaves and litter) that increase fire frequency and intensity. Many birds and mammals adapted to the native plant community declined in abundance as paperbark spread. The invasive zebra mussel is depleting the food of marine natives. In similar fashion aquatic plants such as South American water hyacinth in Texas and Louisiana and marine algae such as Australian Caulerpa in the Mediterranean Sea change vast expanses of habitat by replacing formerly dominant native plants. The zebra mussel accidentally brought to the United States from southern Russia transforms aquatic habitats by filtering prodigious amounts of water (thereby lowering densities of planktonic organisms) and settling in dense masses over vast areas. At least thirty freshwater mussel species are threatened with extinction by the zebra mussel. Other invaders though they do not change a habitat endanger single species or even entire groups of them in various ways: Trout fishing is almost nonexistent in some American states because of a foreign parasite. The predatory brown tree snake introduced in cargo from the Admiralty Islands has eliminated ten of the eleven native bird species from the forests of Guam. The Nile perch a voracious predator introduced to Lake Victoria as a food fish has already extinguished over one hundred species of native cichlid fish there. A parasite can be similarly devastating. The sea lamprey reached the Great Lakes through a series of canals and in combination with overfishing led to the extinction of three endemic fishes. The European parasite that causes whirling disease in fishes introduced to rainbow trout in a hatchery in Pennsylvania has now spread to many states and devastated the rainbow trout sport fishery in Montana and Colorado. Herbivores can wreak great damage. The first sailors to land on the remote Atlantic island of St. Helena in the 16th century introduced goats which quickly extinguished over half the endemic plant species. Some impacts of invaders are subtle but nonetheless destructive to native species: Some alien species eliminate native species by breeding with them altering the gene pool. North American gray squirrels are driving native red squirrels to extinction in Great Britain and Italy by foraging for nuts more efficiently than the native species. Such competition for resources is not easy to observe but the end result is the loss of a native species. Hybridization or cross-breeding of introduced species with natives is an even subtler impact (no lineage goes extinct) but it is insidious because it leads gradually to the extinction of many native species as their gene pools inevitably evolve to become those of the invader. Introduced mallards for instance are driving the native Hawaiian duck to a sort of genetic extinction by breeding with them. Of 26 animal species that have gone extinct since being listed under the Endangered Species Act at least three were wholly or partly lost because of hybridization with invaders. One was a fish native to Texas eliminated by hybridization with introduced mosquito fish. Rainbow trout introduced widely in the United States as game fish are hybridizing with five species listed under the Endangered Species Act such as the Gila trout and Apache trout. The endangered endemic Hawaiian duck is being lost to hybridization with North American mallards introduced for hunting. The rarest European duck (the white-headed duck) is threatened by hybridization with the North American ruddy duck which was originally kept as an amenity in a British game park. The ruddy duck escaped crossed the English Channel and spread to Spain the last stronghold of the white-headed duck. Invasion meltdown: when an invasive species triggers destructive traits in another species. </source> [/INST] <claim>Invasive species will collapse biodiversity and cause extinction</claim> <psg>the introduction of non-native or exotic species negatively affects our environment and the diversity of life on our planet Invasive species cause more damage than some pollutant threats to biodiversity introduced species are a greater threat to native biodiversity than pollution harvest and disease combined. damage to agriculture forestry fisheries and other human enterprises introduced species inflict an enormous economic cost estimated at $137 billion per year to the U.S. economy alone. The greatest impact is caused by introduced species that change an entire habitat because many native species thrive only in a particular habitat. Florida’s fires are fueled by a tree imported from Australia it was a disaster for many animals that were highly adapted to live in forests dominated by this tree species. For example ten moth species that could live only on chestnut trees became extinct. The invasive zebra mussel is depleting the food of marine natives. The zebra mussel accidentally brought to the United States from southern Russia transforms aquatic habitats by filtering prodigious amounts of water Other invaders though they do not change a habitat endanger single species or even entire groups of them in various ways: The predatory brown tree snake introduced in cargo from the Admiralty Islands has eliminated ten of the eleven native bird species from the forests of Guam. A parasite can be similarly devastating. The sea lamprey reached the Great Lakes through a series of canals and in combination with overfishing led to the extinction of three endemic fishes. Herbivores can wreak great damage. The first sailors to land on the remote Atlantic island of St. Helena in the 16th century introduced goats which quickly extinguished over half the endemic plant species. Some alien species eliminate native species by breeding with them altering the gene pool. North American gray squirrels are driving native red squirrels to extinction in Great Britain and Italy by foraging for nuts more efficiently than the native species. Such competition for resources is not easy to observe but the end result is the loss of a native species. The endangered endemic Hawaiian duck is being lost to hybridization with North American mallards introduced for hunting. Invasion meltdown: when an invasive species triggers destructive traits in another species.</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> Illegal trade in wildlife is significant worldwide. Its global scale presents several potential threats to both the environment and regional security including loss of biodiversity introduction of invasive alien species and growth of global criminal networks. The TPP countries are source transit or destination countries for this illegal trade and the region includes primary trading routes for illegal trade ranging from rhino horn live tiger cubs and tiger parts for medicinal purposes to tortoises snakes iguanas exotic pets and much more. Each of the TPP countries has a vested interest in protecting its wildlife resources for their ecological and economic value. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP will expand illegal trade networks – crushing biodiversity and spreading invasive species</claim> <psg>Illegal trade in wildlife is significant worldwide including loss of biodiversity introduction of invasive alien species and growth of global criminal networks The TPP countries are source transit or destination countries for this illegal trade primary trading routes for illegal trade ranging from rhino horn live tiger cubs and tiger parts for medicinal purposes to tortoises snakes iguanas exotic pets and much more</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> Many marine scientists consider overfishing to be the greatest of these threats. The Census of Marine Life a decade-long international survey of ocean life completed in 2010 estimated that 90% of the big fish had disappeared from the world's oceans victims primarily of overfishing. Tens of thousands of bluefin tuna were caught every year in the North Sea in the 1930s and 1940s. Today they have disappeared across the seas of Northern Europe. Halibut has suffered a similar fate largely vanishing from the North Atlantic in the 19th century. Opinion: Probing the ocean's undiscovered depths In some cases the collapse has spread to entire fisheries. The remaining fishing trawlers in the Irish Sea for example bring back nothing more than prawns and scallops says marine biologist Callum Roberts from the UK's York University. 'Is a smear of protein the sort of marine environment we want or need? No we need one with a variety of species that is going to be more resistant to the conditions we can expect from climate change ' Roberts said. The situation is even worse in Southeast Asia. In Indonesia people are now fishing for juvenile fish and protein that they can grind into fishmeal and use as feed for coastal prawn farms. 'It's heading towards an end game ' laments Roberts </source> [/INST] <claim>The brink is now – overfishing has brought us to the brink – the TPP will open up Asia and collapse the marine environment</claim> <psg>Many marine scientists consider overfishing to be the greatest of these threats. The Census of Marine Life 90% of the big fish had disappeared from the world's oceans victims primarily of overfishing Tens of thousands of bluefin tuna were caught every year Today they have disappeared across the seas of Northern Europe. Halibut has suffered a similar fate largely vanishing from the North Atlantic in the 19th century. In some cases the collapse has spread to entire fisheries. The remaining fishing trawlers in the Irish Sea for example bring back nothing more than prawns and scallops says marine biologist Callum Roberts Is a smear of protein the sort of marine environment we want or need? No we need one with a variety of species that is going to be more resistant to the conditions we can expect from climate change The situation is even worse in Southeast Asia. In Indonesia people are now fishing for juvenile fish and protein that they can grind into fishmeal and use as feed for coastal prawn farms. 'It's heading towards an end game ' laments Roberts</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> Another environmental concern of the implementation of the TPP is the impact it could have on fishing. The United States Vietnam Canada and Chile are among the top fifteen exporters of fish in the world.164 Overfishing is an ever-increasing concern as one half of the global marine catch is designated as fully exploited one quarter as over exploited or depleted and the other quarter as underexploited but composed mainly of low-value species.165 This problem is not strictly a conservational one as losses to the global economy from the unsustainable exploitation of marine resources may exceed $50 billion annually.166 While relaxed restrictions on fishing contribute to overfishing fishing subsidies which total $16 billion worldwide each year are a more immediate concern as governments are actively promoting overfishing.167 </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP will accelerate overfishing</claim> <psg>the implementation of the TPP is the impact it could have on fishing. Overfishing is an ever-increasing concern as one half of the global marine catch is designated as fully exploited one quarter as over exploited or depleted and the other quarter as underexploited but composed mainly of low-value species s problem is not strictly a conservational one as losses to the global economy from the unsustainable exploitation of marine resources may exceed $50 billion annually.166 worldwide each year are a more immediate concern as governments are actively promoting overfishing.167</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 is a global corporate coup that undermines democracy and makes corporations more powerful than government. It creates a “trade tribunal” system that allows corporations to sue governments for expected lost profits resulting from environmental labor health consumer protection and other laws. The judges in the tribunals will be corporate lawyers on temporary leave from corporate job in order to rule on cases brought by corporations and then returning to their corporate job. This rigged rule of law system will prevent countries from acting in the public interest and for the protection of the planet. The TPP undermines the rule of law. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP undermines democracy</claim> <psg>The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a global corporate coup that undermines democracy and makes corporations more powerful than government. It creates a “trade tribunal” system that allows corporations to sue governments for expected lost profits resulting from environmental labor health consumer protection and other laws. This rigged rule of law system will prevent countries from acting in the public interest and for the protection of the planet. The TPP undermines the rule of law.</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 TTP will enable corporations to override US Law even while operating in the U.S. The TPP will yank democracy right out of our hands by making law contrary to our interests! This act will allow corporations to just about have no oversight at all. Pharmaceutical companies will be able to charge outrageous prices for medicine. The Banks will run roughshod over us (again) destroying our already fragile economy. Chemical-Agricultural companies will have carte blanche over our food accomplishing their goal of weeding out the world's population. Nestle and others will have full control over our water supply. This 'trade' deal will only enrich the 1% and further the destruction of our middle class and its freedoms. The Trans-Pacific Partnership's goal is to give multinational investors (corporations) and domestic corporations the right to challenge any and all of our health consumer safety environmental banking (Dodd-Frank for example) patent and copyright laws and regulations before an international tribunal (most likely cherry-picked by the corporations). This will place these corporations in an equal or higher position than the nations of the world's governments and certainly above us the people. Basically if we pass any laws or currently have any laws on the books that could somehow restrict or diminish any 'expected future profits' these corporations can demand the taxpayers to compensate them for their 'lost' earnings and also pay their legal bills. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP will yank democracy out of the world</claim> <psg>The Trans-Pacific Partnership TTP will enable corporations to override US Law even while operating in the U.S The TPP will yank democracy right out of our hands by making law contrary to our interests! This act will allow corporations to just about have no oversight at all. Pharmaceutical companies will be able to charge outrageous prices for medicine. T Nestle and others will have full control over our water supply The Trans-Pacific Partnership's goal is to give multinational investors (corporations) and domestic corporations the right to challenge any and all of our health consumer safety environmental banking (Dodd-Frank for example) patent and copyright laws and regulations before an international tribunal (most likely cherry-picked by the corporations). This will place these corporations in an equal or higher position than the nations of the world's governments and certainly above us the people these corporations can demand the taxpayers to compensate them for their 'lost' earnings and also pay their legal bills.</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> Negotiators will meet in Singapore this week for yet another round of talks on a Trans-Pacific Partnership – it is the 16th time in just a few years. A TPP would bring together key Pacific-rim countries into a trading bloc that the US hopes would counter China’s growing influence in the region. Among other sticking points talks remain stalled because the US insists that its TPP trading partners dismantle regulations for cross-border finance. Many TPP nations will have nothing of it and for good reason. The US stance stands on the wrong side of country experience economic theory and guidelines issued by the International Monetary Fund. TPP nations such as Chile and Malaysia successfully regulated cross-border finance to prevent and mitigate severe financial crises in those countries in the 1990s. In the wake of 2008 there has been a global rethink regarding the extent to which cross-border financial flows should be regulated. Many nations such as Brazil and South Korea have built on the example of Chile and Malaysia and reregulated cross border finance through taxes on short-term debt and foreign exchange derivative regulations. After 2008 emerging markets and developing nations want as many tools as possible to prevent and mitigate crises. New research in economic theory justifies this. Anton Korinek and Olivier Jeanne have demonstrated how externalities are generated by cross border financial flows because investors and borrowers do not know (or ignore) what the effects of their financial decisions will be in terms of financial stability in a particular nation. Foreign investors may well tip a nation into financial difficulties and even a crisis. The authors argue that regulating cross border finance will correct for the market failure and make markets work more efficiently. Such thinking has in part triggered an about face at the IMF on capital flows. Last December the IMF endorsed an “institutional view” on capital account liberalization and the management of capital flows. The IMF now recognises that capital flows bring risk particularly in the form of capital inflow surges and sudden stops which can cause a great deal of financial instability. Under such conditions the IMF will now recommend the use of cross-border financial regulations to avoid such instability. I led a task force that held a compatibility review examining the extent to which the regulation of cross-border finance was compatible with many of the trade and investment treaties across the globe. It consisted of former and current Central Bank officials IMF and WTO staff members of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences as well as scholars and members of civil society. In areport published this week we find that US trade and investment treaties were the most incompatible with new thinking and policy on regulating global finance. Not only do US treaties mandate that all forms of finance move across borders freely and without delay but deals such as the TPP would allow private investors to directly file claims against governments that regulate them as opposed to a WTO-like system where nation states (ie the regulators) decide whether claims are brought. Therefore under investor-state dispute settlement a few financial firms would have the power to externalise the costs of financial instability to the broader public while profiting from awards in private tribunals. Such provisions fly in the face of recommendations on investment from a group of more than 250 US and globally renowned economists. The 2012 IMF decision echoes these sentiments when it says “these agreements in many cases do not provide appropriate safeguards or proper sequencing of liberalization and could thus benefit from reform to include these protections”. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP will cause economic instability and crisis</claim> <psg>A TPP would bring together key Pacific-rim countries into a trading bloc that the US hopes would counter China’s growing influence in the region. the US insists that its TPP trading partners dismantle regulations for cross-border finance. The US stance stands on the wrong side of country experience economic theory and guidelines issued by the International Monetary Fund. TPP nations such as Chile and Malaysia successfully regulated cross-border finance to prevent and mitigate severe financial crises in those countries in the 1990s. there has been a global rethink regarding the extent to which cross-border financial flows should be regulated emerging markets and developing nations want as many tools as possible to prevent and mitigate crises onstrated how externalities are generated by cross border financial flows because investors and borrowers do not know (or ignore) what the effects of their financial decisions will be in terms of financial stability in a particular nation Foreign investors may well tip a nation into financial difficulties and even a crisis. Such thinking has in part triggered an about face at the IMF on capital flows. IMF now recognises that capital flows bring risk particularly in the form of capital inflow surges and sudden stops which can cause a great deal of financial instability. we find that US trade and investment treaties were the most incompatible with new thinking and policy on regulating global finance. Not only do US treaties mandate that all forms of finance move across borders freely and without delay but deals such as the TPP would allow private investors to directly file claims against governments that regulate them as opposed to a WTO-like system where nation states decide whether claims are brought nder investor-state dispute settlement a few financial firms would have the power to externalise the costs of financial instability to the broader public while profiting from awards in private tribunals. fly in the face of recommendations on investment from a group of more than 250 US and globally renowned economists. these agreements in many cases do not provide appropriate safeguards or proper sequencing of liberalization and could thus benefit from reform to include these protections”.</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 prospect of a coming trade bloc in the Pacific region under leadership of the US should be a wake-up call for EU trade policy. While the EU is in itself the biggest trade bloc total EU exports to the prospective TPP countries account for 23.8% of EU’s external exports (and 30.6% if Canada Mexico and Japan would join the TPP). Figure 1 depicts the importance of different markets for the EU’s external exports in 2010. Even though the members of the TPP negotiations have already initiated several bilateral agreements among themselves the EU may be losing out in terms of market access if the liberalisation process triggers exports within the prospective TPP without simultaneously stimulating demand for European goods. Additionally the TPP leaves significant potential for vertical integration via production networks (Baldwin 2011). The risk of trade-diverting effects of the TPP on the EU’s external trade is therefore real. Jagdish Bhagwati (2012) the most prominent and ardent critic of any kind of regional PTA recently called the TPP a “discriminatory plurilateral FTA [free trade agreement]”. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP will leave the EU by the wayside</claim> <psg>The prospect of a coming trade bloc in the Pacific region under leadership of the US should be a wake-up call for EU trade policy total EU exports to the prospective TPP countries account for 23.8% of EU’s external exports . Even though the members of the TPP negotiations have already initiated several bilateral agreements among themselves the EU may be losing out in terms of market access if the liberalisation process triggers exports within the prospective TPP without simultaneously stimulating demand for European goods the TPP leaves significant potential for vertical integration via production networks (Baldwin 2011). The risk of trade-diverting effects of the TPP on the EU’s external trade is therefore real. Jagdish Bhagwati (2012) the most prominent and ardent critic of any kind of regional PTA recently called the TPP a “discriminatory plurilateral FTA [free trade agreement]”.</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 Asia-Pacific region is showing signs of militarisation that could lead to an arms race EU President Herman Van Rompuy warned Wednesday calling for closer trade ties to defuse any political tensions. 'Whereas Europe used to be the most dangerous continent in the past century... the focus of security analysts and hard power strategic planners has recently moved towards developments in Asia and the Pacific ' said Van Rompuy in a speech at the University of Zurich. 'They do not yet observe a full-blown arms race but in terms of military spending and confrontational psychology the premises of an arms race are there ' he added without naming individual countries. 'It will thus be key to continue deepening economic relationships within that region so as to make a war as it were 'materially impossible' ' added Van Rompuy. Noting that the EU is a key trading partner to major economies in the region the EU Council President said Brussels 'does not only have a significant stake in regional stability but itself is a potential major factor contributing to this stability.' This fact 'should also be reflected in higher political attention paid to and political activity shown in the region ' he added. </source> [/INST] <claim>EU trade is key to regional stability and the prevention of an arms race</claim> <psg>The Asia-Pacific region is showing signs of militarisation that could lead to an arms race Europe used to be the most dangerous continent in the past century... the focus of security analysts and hard power strategic planners has recently moved towards developments in Asia and the Pacific Zurich. 'They do not yet observe a full-blown arms race but in terms of military spending and confrontational psychology the premises of an arms race are there ' It will thus be key to continue deepening economic relationships within that region so as to make a war as it were 'materially impossible' ' EU is a key trading partner to major economies in the region does not only have a significant stake in regional stability but itself is a potential major factor contributing to this stability.' This fact 'should also be reflected in higher political attention paid to and political activity shown in the region ' he added.</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 do these results imply for economic policy? Even though our estimates suggest that negotiations of bilateral trade initiatives are more likely to reap anticipatory trade effects compared with a multilateral alternative anticipatory trade effects will depend on more than just the number of participating countries. The more credible the negotiations are and the greater the prospects of successful conclusion and implementation the greater the chances to realise anticipatory effects in terms of increased investment and trade. If policymakers involved in the TPP negotiations can credibly signal that multilateral trade liberalisation will be achieved TPP may yet have its desired impact ahead of coming into force. Therefore given potential trade-diverting effects the TPP could have a direct impact on the EU’s trade relations with the Asia-Pacific region sooner than Brussels may realise. Instead of standing idly by the European Commission should become more active and seek to strengthen trade ties between the EU and the prospective TPP countries. One option for the EU would be to try to advance its current bilateral PTA negotiations with Malaysia and Singapore and enter trade talks with Japan Brunei and Vietnam which have been under consideration for a while. The second option which is more ambitious and likely to yield greater benefits not only for the EU but for the entire world economy would be to revive global trade talks by offering more concessions on market access for agricultural products from developing countries and cutting agricultural subsidies at home. </source> [/INST] <claim>TPP will trade off with the EU</claim> <psg>? Even though our estimates suggest that negotiations of bilateral trade initiatives are more likely to reap anticipatory trade effects compared with a multilateral alternative anticipatory trade effects will depend on more than just the number of participating countries. credible the negotiations are and the greater the prospects of successful conclusion and implementation the greater the chances to realise anticipatory effects in terms of increased investment and trade TPP negotiations can credibly signal that multilateral trade liberalisation will be achieved TPP may yet have its desired impact ahead of coming into force. Therefore given potential trade-diverting effects the TPP could have a direct impact on the EU’s trade relations with the Asia-Pacific region sooner than Brussels may realise European Commission should become more active and seek to strengthen trade ties between the EU and the prospective TPP countries. One option for the EU would be to try to advance its current bilateral PTA negotiations with Malaysia and Singapore and enter trade talks with Japan Brunei and Vietnam which have been under consideration for a while. The second option which is more ambitious and likely to yield greater benefits not only for the EU but for the entire world economy would be to revive global trade talks by offering more concessions on market access for agricultural products from developing countries and cutting agricultural subsidies at home.</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> It comes as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducts a study of the effects of fracking particularly the disposal of wastewater which could form the basis of new regulations on oil and gas drilling. Geologists have known for 50 years that injecting fluid underground can increase pressure on seismic faults and make them more likely to slip. The result is an 'induced' quake. A recent surge in U.S. oil and gas production - much of it using vast amounts of water to crack open rocks and release natural gas as in fracking or to bring up oil and gas from standard wells - has been linked to an increase in small to moderate induced earthquakes in Oklahoma Arkansas Ohio Texas and Colorado. Now seismologists at Columbia University say they have identified three quakes - in Oklahoma Colorado and Texas - that were triggered at injection-well sites by major earthquakes a long distance away. 'The fluids (in wastewater injection wells) are driving the faults to their tipping point ' said Nicholas van der Elst of Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades New York who led the study. It was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey. Fracking opponents' main concern is that it will release toxic chemicals into water supplies said John Armstrong a spokesman for New Yorkers Against Fracking an advocacy group. But 'when you tell people the process is linked to earthquakes the reaction is 'what? They're doing something that can cause earthquakes?' This really should be a stark warning ' he said. Fracking proponents reacted cautiously to the study. 'More fact-based research ... aimed at further reducing the very rare occurrence of seismicity associated with underground injection wells is welcomed and will certainly help enable more responsible natural gas development ' said Kathryn Klaber chief executive of the Marcellus Shale Coalition. 'DYNAMIC TRIGGERING' Quakes with a magnitude of 2 or lower which can hardly be felt are routinely produced in fracking said geologist William Ellsworth of the U.S. Geological Survey an expert on human-induced earthquakes who was not involved in the study. The largest fracking-induced earthquake 'was magnitude 3.6 which is too small to pose a serious risk ' he wrote in Science. But van der Elst and colleagues found evidence that injection wells can set the stage for more dangerous quakes. Because pressure from wastewater wells stresses nearby faults if seismic waves speeding across Earth's surface hit the fault it can rupture and months later produce an earthquake stronger than magnitude 5. What seems to happen is that wastewater injection leaves local faults 'critically loaded ' or on the verge of rupture. Even weak seismic waves from faraway quakes are therefore enough to set off a swarm of small quakes in a process called 'dynamic triggering.' 'I have observed remote triggering in Oklahoma ' said seismologist Austin Holland of the Oklahoma Geological Survey who was not involved in the study. 'This has occurred in areas where no injections are going on but it is more likely to occur in injection areas.' Once these triggered quakes stop the danger is not necessarily over. The swarm of quakes said Heather Savage of Lamont-Doherty and a co-author of the study 'could indicate that faults are becoming critically stressed and might soon host a larger earthquake.' For instance seismic waves from an 8.8 quake in Maule Chile in February 2010 rippled across the planet and triggered a 4.1 quake in Prague Oklahoma - site of the Wilzetta oil field - some 16 hours later. That was followed by months of smaller tremors in Oklahoma and then the largest quake yet associated with wastewater injection a 5.7 temblor in Prague on November 6 2011. That quake destroyed 14 homes buckled a highway and injured two people. The Prague quake is 'not only one of the largest earthquakes to be associated with wastewater disposal but also one of the largest linked to a remote triggering event ' said van der Elst. The Chile quake also caused a swarm of small temblors in Trinidad Colorado near wells where wastewater used to extract methane from coal beds had been injected. On August 22 2011 a magnitude 5.3 quake hit Trinidad damaging dozens of buildings. The 9.1 earthquake in Japan in March 2011 which caused a devastating tsunami triggered a swarm of small quakes in Snyder Texas - site of the Cogdell oil field. That autumn Snyder experienced a 4.5 quake. The presence of injection wells does not mean an area is doomed to have a swarm of earthquakes as a result of seismic activity half a world away and a swarm of induced quakes does not necessarily portend a big one. Guy Arkansas. Jones Oklahoma. and Youngstown Ohio have all experienced moderate induced quakes due to fluid injection from oil or gas drilling.. </source> [/INST] <claim>Fracking sparks remote triggered massive earthquakes</claim> <psg>fracking particularly the disposal of wastewater which could form the basis of new regulations on oil and gas drilling. Geologists have known for 50 years that injecting fluid underground can increase pressure on seismic faults and make them more likely to slip The result is an 'induced' quake fracking or to bring up oil and gas from standard wells - has been linked to an increase in small to moderate induced earthquake that were triggered at injection-well sites by major earthquakes a long distance away. when you tell people the process is linked to earthquakes the reaction is 'what? They're doing something that can cause earthquakes? The largest fracking-induced earthquake 'was magnitude 3.6 which is too small to pose a serious risk ' evidence that injection wells can set the stage for more dangerous quakes. Because pressure from wastewater wells stresses nearby faults if seismic waves speeding across Earth's surface hit the fault it can rupture and months later produce an earthquake stronger than magnitude 5. leaves local faults 'critically loaded ' or on the verge of rupture I have observed remote triggering the danger is not necessarily over. The swarm of quakes could indicate that faults are becoming critically stressed and might soon host a larger earthquake but also one of the largest linked to a remote triggering event ' The presence of injection wells does not mean an area is doomed to have a swarm of earthquakes as a result of seismic activity half a world away and a swarm of induced quakes does not necessarily portend a big one. Guy Arkansas. Jones Oklahoma. and Youngstown Ohio have all experienced moderate induced quakes due to fluid injection from oil or gas drilling</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 contradiction between Man and Nature has reached unprecedented heights forcing us to re-examine our understanding of the existing world system. US President George W Bush has announced the creation of an international alliance between the US Japan India Australia and any other nation wishing to join that will work to help the stricken region overcome the huge problems it is facing in the wake of the tsunamis. Actually the implications of the disaster are not only regional but global not to say cosmic. Is it possible to mobilise all the inhabitants of our planet to the extent and at the speed necessary to avert similar disasters in future? How to engender the required state of emergency that is a different type of inter-human relations which rise to the level of the challenge before contradictions between the various sections of the world community make that collective effort unrealisable? The human species has never been exposed to a natural upheaval of this magnitud3e within living memory. What happened in South Asia is the ecological equivalent of 9/11. Ecological problems like global warming and climatic disturbances in general threaten to make our natural habitat unfit for human life. The extinction of the species has become a very real possibility whether by our own hand or as a result of natural disasters of a much greater magnitude than the Indian Ocean earthquake and the killer waves it spawned. Human civilisation has developed in the hope that Man will be able to reach welfare and prosperity on earth for everybody. But now things seem to be moving in the opposite direction exposing planet Earth to the end of its role as a nurturing place for human life. Today human conflicts have become less of a threat than the confrontation between Man and Nature. At least they are less likely to bring about the end of the human species. The reactions of Nature as a result of its exposure to the onslaughts of human societies have become more important in determining the fate of the human species than any harm it can inflict on itself. </source> [/INST] <claim>Unchecked natural disasters cause extinction </claim> <psg>The contradiction between Man and Nature has reached unprecedented heights huge problems it is facing in the wake of the tsunamis. Actually the implications of the disaster are not only regional but global not to say cosmic to mobilise all the inhabitants of our planet to the extent and at the speed necessary to avert similar disasters in future? The human species has never been exposed to a natural upheaval of this magnitud3e within living memory. Ecological problems like global warming and climatic disturbances in general threaten to make our natural habitat unfit for human life. The extinction of the species has become a very real possibility whether by our own hand or as a result of natural disasters of a much greater magnitude than the Indian Ocean earthquake and the killer waves it spawned. Human civilisation has developed in the hope that Man will be able to reach welfare and prosperity on earth for everybody exposing planet Earth to the end of its role as a nurturing place for human life. Today human conflicts have become less of a threat than the confrontation between Man and Nature The reactions of Nature as a result of its exposure to the onslaughts of human societies have become more important in determining the fate of the human species than any harm it can inflict on itself.</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> Hydraulic fracturing to release gas or oil trapped deep underground in shale rock is of course highly contested. In environmental circles and on the political left indeed the 'politically correct' view seems to be that fracking is just as bad as nuclear energy however much each might contribute to energy security or greenhouse gas reduction. The wider mainstream view—and this is the attitude explicitly embraced by the Obama administration—is that fracking can be good if properly regulated to minimize negative effects on the environment especially on water. That position may be complicated however by results of new study appearing Friday in Science which strongly suggest that wastewater injection in fracking operations can significantly aggravate earthquake risks. The study led by Nicholas van der Elst of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory finds that a severe Chilean earthquake on 27 February 2010 triggered less than a day later a significant earthquake in Prague Oklahoma where there was a set of water injection wells. Unusual seismic activity continued near Prague for almost two years until late November 2011 when an earthquake destroyed 14 homes and injured two people according to a Lamont-Doherty press release. Then in April 2012 a major earthquake in Sumatra triggered yet another earthquake near the Prague wells where injection continues. The Science article builds on an earlier study that appeared in Geology last March in which a team of Lamont Doherty scientists hypothesized that high-pressure injection of water in a seismically active area could cause a known fault to 'jump.' “When you overpressure the fault you reduce the stress that’s pinning the fault into place and that’s when earthquakes happen ” said Heather Savage a co-author of both the older and newer reports. Besides affecting Prague the Chilean quake also is believed to have set off a temblor in Trinidad Colorado where suspicions about water injection and seismicity already had attracted the attention of the U.S. Geolorgic Survey. Japan's devastating earthquake of March 2011 is thought to have triggered a temblor in the West Texas town of Snyder where high-pressure water injection was taking place. The van der Elst research in Science appears together with other articles about how human activity may be affecting earthquake risks. </source> [/INST] <claim>Earthquakes are human induced and caused by fracking –empirics prove</claim> <psg>Hydraulic fracturing to release gas or oil trapped deep underground in shale rock is of course highly contested. fracking is just as bad as nuclear wastewater injection in fracking operations can significantly aggravate earthquake risks. finds that a severe Chilean earthquake on 27 February 2010 triggered less than a day later a significant earthquake in Prague Oklahoma where there was a set of water injection wells major earthquake in Sumatra triggered yet another earthquake near the Prague wells where injection continues scientists hypothesized that high-pressure injection of water in a seismically active area could cause a known fault to 'jump.' When you overpressure the fault you reduce the stress that’s pinning the fault into place and that’s when earthquakes happen suspicions about water injection and seismicity already had attracted the attention of the U.S. Geolorgic Survey Japan's devastating earthquake of March 2011 is thought to have triggered a temblor in the West Texas town of Snyder where high-pressure water injection was taking place. The van der Elst research in Science appears together with other articles about how human activity may be affecting earthquake risks.</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 right to have the means to sustain one’s physical life is a foundational principle of human rights. The right to work and earn a livable wage in conditions commensurate with human dignity that allow for securing adequate food clothing housing medical care and necessary social services is the basis for material sustainability and a dignified life. The right to join or form unions engage in collective bargaining and live in a clean and healthy environment free of pollutants in the air and land are also fundamental for securing material sustainability and dignity for the individual peoples and States. And in order to secure these rights the right to information participation popular sovereignty and national self-determination must be recognized and protected. All states have an obligation under the current regime of state-centered international human rights to respect protect and fulfill the full range of human rights. However under the terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) a so-called free trade agreement negotiated in secret by the Obama Administration and now scheduled to be fast-tracked into law this fall it appears that the fundamental human rights of the laboring classes in the U.S. and all of the countries involved in this free trade agreement would be violated. It is difficult to determine the full extent to which the agreement poses a threat to human rights because of the wall of secrecy with which the Obama Administration has excluded the public during the negotiations. The secrecy surrounding the agreement also extended to members of Congress who have been denied access to the draft agreement by the Obama Administration. Incredibly even US Senator Ron Wyden who chairs the Congressional Committee with jurisdiction over the TPP agreement was denied access to the negotiation texts. On the other hand more than 600 private sector “advisors” have had access to the draft—a fact that is consistent with the Administration’s commitment to the private corporate sector over the public’s right to know. Judging by the provisions of the agreement that have been leaked it is quite understandable why the Administration would not want the terms and the scope of this agreement made available to the public. The TPP goes well beyond what is commonly understood to come under the purview of free trade. Not only will the TPP be the largest and most ambitious trade agreement in U.S. history it will set rules on non-trade matters such as food safety internet freedom medicine costs financial regulation and the environment in favor of U.S. financial and corporate interests and to the detriment of workers and the general public in the U.S. and in the countries that become part of the agreement. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP will violate human rights</claim> <psg>The right to have the means to sustain one’s physical life is a foundational principle of human rights. The right to work and earn a livable wage in conditions commensurate with human dignity that allow for securing adequate food clothing housing medical care and necessary social services is the basis for material sustainability and a dignified life. The right to join or form unions engage in collective bargaining and live in a clean and healthy environment free of pollutants in the air and land are also fundamental for securing material sustainability and dignity for the individual peoples and States. And in order to secure these rights the right to information participation popular sovereignty and national self-determination must be recognized and protected. All states have an obligation under the current regime of state-centered international human rights fulfill the full range of human rights. under the terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) a so-called free trade agreement negotiated in secret by the Obama Administration and now scheduled to be fast-tracked into law this fall it appears that the fundamental human rights of the laboring classes in the U.S. and all of the countries involved in this free trade agreement would be violated. a threat to human rights because of the wall of secrecy with which the Obama Administration The secrecy surrounding the agreement also extended to members of Congress who have been denied access to the draft agreement by the Obama Administration is quite understandable why the Administration would not want the terms and the scope of this agreement made available to the public. The TPP goes well beyond what is commonly understood to come under the purview of free trade in favor of U.S. financial and corporate interests and to the detriment of workers and the general public in the U.S. and in the countries that become part of the agreement.</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> Perhaps one of the most alarming measures that the TPP will implement will be the further destruction of the U.S. manufacturing sector as the TPP will send even more manufacturing jobs overseas. Furthermore very little is known about the agreement. The negotiations have been taking place in secret and very few of the details have been unveiled to the public. Like other trade agreements before it such as NAFTA and the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement (KOR-US) the TPP is being advertised to the U.S. as a means to improve our economy and increase exports. However if the disastrous effects of NAFTA are any indication TPP will only serve to further cripple our industrial base. America has already experienced the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities with NAFTA a “free trade” agreement that saw much of our manufacturing industry outsourced to foreign nations. If our leaders – primarily President Obama – continues to ram the TPP into law then surely the United States will fall victim to even more economic destruction. Another scary thing about this particular agreement is that the one’s leading the negotiations and gathering support aren’t even taking into account or listening to what the People of the U.S. want. The U.S. public knows how damaging “free trade” agreements are but those taking part in the TPP negotiations don’t care. They’re too busy working to appease corrupt corporations and other 1%-ers who stand to benefit financially from the TPP. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP will hollow out the US manufacturing industry</claim> <psg>Perhaps one of the most alarming measures that the TPP will implement will be the further destruction of the U.S. manufacturing sector as the TPP will send even more manufacturing jobs overseas. very little is known about the agreement Like other trade agreements before it such as NAFTA and the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement he TPP is being advertised to the U.S. as a means to improve our economy and increase exports disastrous effects of NAFTA are any indication TPP will only serve to further cripple our industrial base. America has already experienced the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities with NAFTA a “free trade” agreement that saw much of our manufacturing industry outsourced to foreign nations continues to ram the TPP into law then surely the United States will fall victim to even more economic destruction The U.S. public knows how damaging “free trade” agreements are but those taking part in the TPP negotiations don’t care. They’re too busy working to appease corrupt corporations and other 1%-ers who stand to benefit financially from 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 Obama Administration has continued negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement behind doors closed to the media and without the Congressional involvement that was requested by Congress. Besides being a threat to our national sovereignty as I discussed in a previous blog it is time to shine the light on another egregious provision that would hurt American manufacturers. The Buy American Act was passed by Congress in 1933 and required the U.S. government to give preferential treatment to American producers in awarding of federal contracts. The Act restricted the purchase of supplies that are not domestic end products. For manufactured products the Buy American Act used a two-part test: first the article must be manufactured in the U.S. and second the cost of domestic components must exceed 50 percent of the cost of all its components. Other federal legislation passed since extended similar requirements to third-party purchases that utilize federal funds such as highway and transit programs. 'Buy American' provisions do not help all U.S. firms equally. Corporations headquartered in the U.S. that offshore most of their manufacturing operations do not benefit from the system designed to promote domestic production in the way that companies with actual U.S. manufacturing operations do. However strengthening the 'Buy American' provisions in our federal procurement system is one of the recommendations I made in my book to benefit American manufacturers and help save American manufacturing. If a domestic producer offers the government a more expensive bid than a foreign producer it can still be awarded the contract under certain circumstances but more recent free trade agreements have granted other nations the same negotiating status as domestic firms. In certain government procurements the requirements may be waived if purchasing the material/parts domestically would burden the government with an unreasonable cost as when the price differential between the domestic product and an identical foreign-sourced product exceeds a certain percentage or the product is not available domestically in sufficient quantity or quality or if doing so is not in the public interest. In recent years the requirements have been increasingly waived to the point that we have lost domestic sources for some defense components and products. In addition the president has authority to waive the Act in response to the provision of reciprocal treatment to U.S. producers. Under the 1979 GATT Agreement on Government Procurement the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement the North American Free Trade Agreement the Central American Free Trade Agreement and the Korea Free Trade Agreement access to government procurement by certain U.S. agencies of goods for the other parties to these agreements is granted. Every one of these trade agreements have increased the trade deficit that the U.S. has with the parties to these agreements. The Obama administration is currently pushing to grant the several nations involved in the Trans-Pacific agreement the same privileged status. What this means is that the TPP's procurement chapter would require that all companies operating in any country signing the agreement be provided access equal to domestic firms to U.S. government procurement contracts over a certain dollar threshold. To meet this requirement the U.S. would have to agree to waive Buy America procurement policies for all companies operating in TPP countries. Supporters of TPP argue that it would be good for America because these rules would apply to all the countries signing the agreement so U.S. firms would be able to bid on procurements contracts in other countries on a national treatment basis. The question is whether this new access for some U.S. companies to bid on contracts in the TPP countries is a good trade-off for waiving Buy America preferences on U.S. procurement? Lori Wallach of Public Citizen has written several articles warning about the dangers of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In an article titled TPP Government Procurement Negotiations: Buy American Policy Banned a Net Loss for the U.S. she points out that the total U.S. procurement market is more than seven times the size of the combined procurement market of the current TPP negotiating parties: Australia Brunei Chile Malaysia New Zealand Peru Singapore and Vietnam. But the United States already has trade deals with procurement provisions with six of these countries: Australia Canada Chile Mexico Peru and Singapore. Removing these countries would mean that the U.S. procurement market is 24 times the size of the total 'new' TPP procurement market. She concludes 'the size of the new procurement markets that the TPP may open for the United States is in the order of $53 billion (national) to $72 billion (total) which is a terrible trade for giving up the U.S procurement market of $556 billion (federal) to $1.7 trillion (total).' In addition she notes that the TPP procurement rules would constrain how our national and state governments may use our tax dollars in local construction projects and purchase of goods and limit what specifications Governments can require for goods and services as well as the qualifications for bidding companies. She warns that if we do not conform our domestic policies to the TPP terms the U.S. government would be subject to lawsuits before foreign tribunals empowered to authorize trade sanctions against the U.S. until our policies changed. 'Also any 'investor' that happens to be incorporated in one of these countries would be empowered to launch its own extra-judicial attack on our domestic laws in World Bank and UN arbitral tribunals with respect to changes to procurement contracts with the U.S. federal government.' A letter from Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and 68 other Congressional Reps to President Obama on May 3 2012 states in part 'We are concerned about proposals we understand are under consideration in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement negotiations that could significantly limit Buy American provisions and as a result adversely impact American jobs workers and manufacturers...We do not believe this approach is in the best interest of U.S. manufacturers and U.S. workers. Of special concern is the prospect that firms established in TPP countries such as the many Chinese firms in Vietnam could obtain waivers from Buy American policies. This could result in larger sums of U.S. tax dollars being invested to strengthen other countries' manufacturing sectors rather than our own.' On November 30 2012 24 Senators sent a letter to President Obama outlining guidelines for the TPP and calling for Congressional consultation for the TPP. The letter urged that the TPP: 'Maintain 'Buy American' government procurement requirements. The American people through their elected officials should not be prohibited from establishing government procurement policies that prioritize job creation in the United States. We hope that you will direct USTR negotiators to ensure that any TPP not restrict 'Buyer American' and 'Buy Local' government procurement policies at the Federal or sub-federal level. Require strong Rules of Origin. The Rules of Origin in the TPP should ensure that only signatories to the TPP will benefit from its increased market access and other provisions so that employment opportunities in the U.S. may be expanded. Non-TPP members must not be allowed to use weak rules of origin as a backdoor way to enter the U.S. market and further depress U.S. job prospects. Ensure that State-Owened and State-Supported Commercial Enterprises (SOEs) operate on a level plaing field. Given that SOEs are more common in the other TPP countries than in the U.S. the TPP should require that SOEs competing with private U.S. enterprises operate andmake decisions on a commercial basis. The agreement should also incorpoarte a reporting requirement so that countries have to provide infromation on the operation of their SOEs in other TPP countries on a regular basis.' Country of Original labeling is another one of the recommendations I've written about in previous blog articles and is the main recommendation of Alan Uke in his book Buying Back America. This would help American consumers make choices when they purchase consumer goods and allow professional procurement specialists in industry and government to choose to support American manufacturers through 'Buying American.' The TPP treaty would exacerbate our trade deficit problem and make it even harder for American manufacturers to compete in the global marketplace. Instead of weakening 'Buy American' requirements through additional trade agreements such as TPP we need to strengthen the requirements. This drastic curtailment of 'Buy American' procurement provisions is another reason why we must make sure Congress rejects any fast-track authority the Obama administration seeks to invoke when it comes time to get final congressional approval for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP would devastate US manufacturing</claim> <psg>The Obama Administration has continued negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement behind doors closed to the media and without the Congressional involvement that was requested by Congress Besides being a threat to our national sovereignty as I discussed in a previous blog it is time to shine the light on another egregious provision that would hurt American manufacturers. : first the article must be manufactured in the U.S. and second the cost of domestic components must exceed 50 percent of the cost of all its components. Other federal legislation passed since extended similar requirements to third-party purchases that utilize federal funds such as highway and transit programs. However strengthening the 'Buy American' provisions in our federal procurement system is one of the recommendations I made in my book to benefit American manufacturers and help save American manufacturing. but more recent free trade agreements have granted other nations the same negotiating status as domestic firms or if doing so is not in the public interest. In recent years the requirements have been increasingly waived to the point that we have lost domestic sources for some defense components and products. Every one of these trade agreements have increased the trade deficit that the U.S. has with the parties to these agreements. TPP's procurement chapter would require that all companies operating in any country signing the agreement be provided access equal to domestic firms to U.S. government procurement contracts over a certain dollar threshold. To meet this requirement the U.S. would have to agree to waive Buy America procurement policies for all companies operating in TPP countries. Supporters of TPP argue that it would be good for America because these rules would apply to all the countries signing the agreement so U.S. firms would be able to bid on procurements contracts in other countries on a national treatment basis. U.S. companies to bid on contracts in the TPP countries is a good trade-off for waiving Buy America preferences on U.S. procurement? Removing these countries would mean that the U.S. procurement market is 24 times the size of the total 'new' TPP procurement market she notes that the TPP procurement rules would constrain how our national and state governments may use our tax dollars in local construction projects and purchase of goods and limit what specifications Governments can require for goods and services as well as the qualifications for bidding companies. TPP terms the U.S. government would be subject to lawsuits before foreign tribunals empowered to authorize trade sanctions against the U.S. until our policies changed. 'Also any 'investor' that happens to be incorporated in one of these countries would be empowered to launch its own extra-judicial attack on our domestic laws in World Bank and UN arbitral tribunals with respect to changes to procurement contracts with the U.S. federal government.' Buy American provisions and as a result adversely impact American jobs workers and manufacturers...We do not believe this approach is in the best interest of U.S. manufacturers and U.S. workers. Of special concern is the prospect that firms established in TPP countries such as the many Chinese firms in Vietnam could obtain waivers from Buy American policies. This could result in larger sums of U.S. tax dollars being invested to strengthen other countries' manufacturing sectors rather than our own.' would help American consumers make choices when they purchase consumer goods and allow professional procurement specialists in industry and government to choose to support American manufacturers through 'Buying American.' The TPP treaty would exacerbate our trade deficit problem and make it even harder for American manufacturers to compete in the global marketplace. Instead of weakening 'Buy American' requirements through additional trade agreements such as TPP we need to strengthen the requirements. </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> Pakistan's export of textile and clothing rebounded for the second consecutive month after posting a decline for at least one year. The increase was mainly driven by a surge in demand from recession-hit key markets of Europe and US suggested data of Pakistan Bureau of Statistics released here on Wednesday. In absolute terms export of textile and clothing witnessed a growth of 10.50 per cent in October 2012 from a year ago. The growth in export proceeds in September 2012 was 12.91 per cent. The unprecedented growth was mainly driven by substantial increase in export proceeds of readymade garments towels and other low value products like cotton yarn and cotton cloth etc. </source> [/INST] <claim>Pakistan’s textile industry is high now – exports</claim> <psg>Pakistan's export of textile and clothing rebounded for the second consecutive month after posting a decline for at least one year The increase was mainly driven by a surge in demand absolute terms export of textile and clothing witnessed a growth The unprecedented growth was mainly driven by substantial increase in export proceeds</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> While the motivation for this agreement may be China it is countries such as Pakistan and India which will be badly affected when this agreement takes place in the near future. The US accounts for 30% of total apparel and textile exports of India. While Pakistan is hoping for GSP plus status in 2014 from the European Union India is on the verge of signing a free trade agreement with the EU. The high duties as compared with the TPP member countries will render textile and garment exports uncompetitive. The most disturbing aspect of this agreement is the ‘yarn forward rule’ that makes it obligatory to procure all the components of any manufactured products from other TPP member countries to avail the benefits of duty waiver. If any component is found to be of origin outside of the member countries full duties on apparel and textiles would be applicable. This will negatively effect and disturb the global supply chain in textile and apparel. While aimed mainly at China Pakistan and other countries who are manufactures of raw material for apparel and textiles will surely suffer from ‘collateral damage’ as a result of TPP. The large retailers and textile buyers such as JC Penny and Levis from the US are not in the favour of any provisions that would exclude traditional suppliers of yarn and fabrics like Pakistan and India to TPP member countries including the US. The government and the industry need to pay heed and lobby for flexibilities in the “yarn forward rule”before it is too late. We may gain GSP Plus to the European Union but risk losing a big market share of the US and other member countries of Trans Pacific Parnership Agreement </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP will crush India’s and Pakistan’s textile industries</claim> <psg>While the motivation for this agreement may be China it is countries such as Pakistan and India which will be badly affected when this agreement The US accounts for 30% of total apparel and textile exports of India. While Pakistan is hoping for GSP plus status in 2014 from the European Union The high duties as compared with the TPP member countries will render textile and garment exports uncompetitive ‘yarn forward rule’ that makes it obligatory to procure all the components of any manufactured products from other TPP member countries to avail the benefits of duty waiver. This will negatively effect and disturb the global supply chain in textile and apparel. Pakistan and other countries who are manufactures of raw material for apparel and textiles will surely suffer from ‘collateral damage’ as a result of TPP The large retailers and textile buyers such as JC Penny and Levis from the US are not in the favour of any provisions that would exclude traditional suppliers of yarn and fabrics like Pakistan and India to TPP member countries including the US. risk losing a big market share of the US and other member countries of Trans Pacific Parnership Agreement</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> Names such as Lakshmi for the spinning industry Kuster Calico for the finishing industry and Bajaj for the ginning industry can offer to Pakistan’s textile industry the highest technology at reasonable price and short delivery times. Pakistan due to its extremely restrictive trade with India could not benefit from Indian machines until two years ago when a large part of spinning machines were officially allowed except the ring frames. Now complete range of textile machines can be imported except for a few parts and accessories which are being made in Pakistan and therefore are given protection. Mr. G.T. Dembla ex Chairman of Textile Machinery Manufacturers Association of India who has visited Pakistan several times spoke to the editor PTJ and said that this liberalization of trade will go a long way in improving the relations between two neighbors India and Pakistan. He said over the years his various meetings with the government functionaries including ex Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz he always stressed the importance of trade between India and Pakistan. He is an active member of ITME India Society the organizers of the textile machinery exhibition ITME held every four years. He believes that this year in December many visitors from Pakistan who visit ITME India 2012 will be able to witness first hand the level of high technology for the textile industry India. Mr. Venkat Reddy Managing Director of Kuster Calico was part of a delegation to Pakistan in 2001 fondly remembered his last visit and said that it is an important moment in history which will bode well for good relations between India and Pakistan. Pakistan also has a lot to offer to India and together they can be a formidable force. Mr. Amir Madhani whose company Madhani Associates has been representing Lakshmi Group since 2010 is delighted with the new developments. According to him finally a complete range of state of the art spinning machines including ring frames will be available for Pakistan’s textile industry. Furthermore it will generate a healthy competitive environment which will benefit the industry by and large. Mr. Amjad Taj Khan who represents Bajaj Lakshmi Card Clothing and a number of other Indian textile machinery brands says that it is a very positive development. Pakistan can now benefit from the R & D of companies like Bajaj who have developed double roller ginning machines most suitable for the subcontinental cotton. This technology which has replaced obsolete saw gin technology is already proving its worth and India is striding ahead in clean and high quality cotton production needed for high value added textiles. </source> [/INST] <claim>Those are key to India Pakistan relations and trade</claim> <psg>Names such as Lakshmi for the spinning industry Kuster Calico for the finishing industry and Bajaj for the ginning industry can offer to Pakistan’s textile industry the highest technology at reasonable price and short delivery times. Pakistan due to its extremely restrictive trade with India could not benefit from Indian machines until two years ago Now complete range of textile machines can be imported except for a few parts and accessories which are being made in Pakistan and therefore are given protection Manufacturers Association of India who has visited Pakistan several times spoke to the editor PTJ and said that this liberalization of trade will go a long way in improving the relations between two neighbors India and Pakistan he always stressed the importance of trade between India and Pakistan. He believes that this year in December many visitors from Pakistan who visit ITME India 2012 will be able to witness first hand the level of high technology for the textile industry India. fondly remembered his last visit and said that it is an important moment in history which will bode well for good relations between India and Pakistan. is delighted with the new developments According to him finally a complete range of state of the art spinning machines including ring frames will be available for Pakistan’s textile industry Furthermore it will generate a healthy competitive environment which will benefit the industry by and large. This technology which has replaced obsolete saw gin technology is already proving its worth and India is striding ahead in clean and high quality cotton production needed for high value added textiles.</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 cursory Google search using keywords “free trade ” “prevent ” and “war ” reveals a body of literature rich on academic studies and scholars attempting to understand the relationship between the level of economic integration between two countries and the likelihood that said countries will engage in armed conflict. Robert Cobden a 19th century British liberal thinker postulated that the “gains from trade” combined with the uncertainty involved with the costs of armed conflict incentivizes nations to uphold the peace. Simply put: trade pays more than war. While the jury is still out on the merits of this argument those who follow India-Pakistan relations have reason to root for Mr. Cobden. A recent spate of high-level meetings between Pakistan and India has produced an impressive array of progress on the economic front signaling a step forward in economic interaction between the South Asian neighbors. On September 7 India’s Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna met with his Pakistani counterpart Hina Rabbani Khar. While security terrorism and border disputes were discussed the real chatter revolved around a landmark visa agreement signed by both countries making it easier for businesspeople as well as those with relatives across the border to travel freely. Adding to this the Indian and Pakistani Commerce Secretaries met September 20-21 and upstaged their foreign ministry counterparts. Commerce Secretary S.R Rao and Munir Qureshi signed three agreements: a trade grievances agreement a mutual recognition agreement and a customs cooperation agreement. They also attended an inauguration of an Integrated Check Post at Attari and discussed promoting trade through increased high-capacity railway traffic opening additional land routes across the border (between Munabhao and Khokhrapar) and ways to encourage two-way investment. The Pakistani side reiterated its goal to grant MFN status to India by the end of 2012 and both nations vowed to further reduce the number of goods protected under the SAFTA sensitive list scale down tariffs to maximum of 5% and remove all non-tariff barriers by 2020. Some analysts indicate that these recently-announced achievements and stated future goals—if pursued to completion—could boost bilateral trade four-fold to $10 billion per year potentially laying the foundation for further economic cooperation and even larger trade flows. Is this a turning point in Indian-Pakistani relations? Will this scenario provide a data-point in support of Mr. Cobden’s hypothesis. that India and Pakistan are on the path towards increased economic integration and hence one step closer to stability and peace? </source> [/INST] <claim>Relations and trade are key to prevent IndoPak war</claim> <psg>free trade ” “prevent ” and “war ” reveals a body of literature rich on academic studies and scholars attempting to understand the relationship between the level of economic integration between two countries and the likelihood that said countries will engage in armed conflict trade pays more than war. those who follow India-Pakistan relations have reason to root for Mr. Cobden. Pakistan and India has produced an impressive array of progress on the economic front signaling a step forward in economic interaction While security terrorism and border disputes were discussed the real chatter revolved around a landmark visa agreement signed by both countries making it easier for businesspeople as well as those with relatives across the border to travel freely They also attended an inauguration of an Integrated Check Post at Attari and discussed promoting trade through increased high-capacity railway traffic opening additional land routes across the border both nations vowed to further reduce the number of goods protected under the SAFTA sensitive list scale down tariffs to maximum of 5% and remove all non-tariff barriers by 2020 pursued to completion—could boost bilateral trade four-fold to $10 billion per year potentially laying the foundation for further economic cooperation and even larger trade flows. Is this a turning point in Indian-Pakistani relations? Will this scenario provide a data-point in support of Mr. Cobden’s hypothesis. that India and Pakistan are on the path towards increased economic integration and hence one step closer to stability and peace?</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> Armed and dangerous To Indians Pakistan's existential fears are exaggerated blown up by the army to scare the people. India has never been the aggressor they point out. Even when India intervened to help split Pakistan in two in 1971 it only did so late after seeing mass flows of refugees and atrocities on a horrific scale by the army against civilians in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Instead say Indians Pakistanis' own paranoia is the root of their instability. M.J. Akbar an eloquent Indian journalist and author of a new book on Pakistan sums up the place as dangerous and fragile a “toxic jelly state”. He blames the army mostly for ever more desperate decisions to preserve its dominance. “Pakistan is slipping into a set of contradictions that increasingly make rational behaviour hostage to the need for institutions to survive ” he says. Others including liberal Pakistanis add that Pakistan cannot shake itself from military men obsessed with India. “We have become delusional psychotic fearing how to protect ourselves from the rest of the world ” says one. India's most senior security officials say that Pakistan is still in essence a state run by its army. That army the world's seventh-largest bleeds the state of about a sixth of all public funds with almost no civilian oversight. All that is grim enough. Then consider how Pakistan is rapidly expanding its arsenal of nuclear weapons. That programme was born out of the country's humiliating loss of East Pakistan in 1971. Six years earlier around the time of a previous defeat by India Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto then Pakistan's foreign minister had declared: “If India builds the bomb we will eat grass or leaves for a thousand years even go hungry but we will get one of our own.” Pakistan may now have between 70 and 120 usable nuclear devices—and may be unusually ready to use them. Some in the West believe Pakistan started preparing nuclear-tipped missiles in the midst of the 1999 Kargil war against India after Pakistan invaded a remote corner of Kashmir. Nobody doubts that Pakistan in the midst of its anxiety over India is trying hard to get more. Its nuclear warheads use an implosion design with a solid core of about 15-20 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. The country produces about 100 kilograms of that a year but is rapidly expanding its nuclear infrastructure with Chinese help. And with production long-established the price of adding weapons has fallen to almost nothing. A nuclear physicist in Pakistan Pervez Hoodbhoy now suggests that “you can have a working nuke for about $10m or the cost of a nice big house in Islamabad.” The new push seems as ever to be a response to two developments next door. Pakistan was badly spooked by India's deal on civil nuclear power with America completed in 2008. This not only binds America and India closely. it also lets India buy uranium on international markets and probably means it will soon build many more reactors. By one panicky Pakistani estimate India could eventually be making 280 nuclear weapons a year. The other change is over doctrine and delivery. India has long held a position of “no first use” of nukes. Pakistan by contrast with weaker conventional forces refuses to rule out the option of starting a nuclear war against India and is now taking steps that could make such first use more likely. Last month it test-fired a new missile the Hatf IX with a range of just 60km and specifically designed for war-fighting. Two missiles are carried in tubes on a transporter and can be fired accurately at short notice. The warheads are small low-yielding devices for destroying large tank formations with relatively little explosive damage or radiation beyond the battlefield. Pakistan's generals say their new tactical weapons will meet a threat from India's Cold Start doctrine adopted in 2004 that calls for rapid punitive though conventional thrusts against Pakistan. But by rolling out tactical nuclear weapons Pakistan is stirring fears of instability. Previous efforts to reassure observers that terrorists or rogue army officers could not get hold of nukes rested on the fact that warheads and delivery systems were stored separately and were difficult to fire—and that final authority to launch a strike requires “consensus” within the National Command Authority which includes various ministers and the heads of all three services and is chaired by the prime minister. But tactical nuclear weapons deployed close to the battlefield pose new risks. Command-and-control protocols are likely to be looser and more delegated. If field officers retreating in the face of a conventional attack by India were forced to decide between using or losing their nuclear weapons a border incursion could swiftly escalate into something very much bigger and more lethal. </source> [/INST] <claim>IndoPak war causes miscalculation and extinction </claim> <psg>Armed and dangerous Pakistan is slipping into a set of contradictions that increasingly make rational behaviour hostage to the need for institutions to survive ” We have become delusional psychotic fearing how to protect ourselves from the rest of the world ” All that is grim enough. Then consider how Pakistan is rapidly expanding its arsenal of nuclear weapons. That was born out of the country's humiliating loss of East Pakistan Nobody doubts that Pakistan is trying hard to get more. Its nuclear warheads use an implosion design of highly enriched uranium. Pakistan was badly spooked by India's deal on civil nuclear power with America Pakistan with weaker conventional forces refuses to rule out the option of starting a nuclear war against India and is now taking steps that could make such first use more likely. by rolling out tactical nuclear weapons Pakistan is stirring fears of instability. tactical nuclear weapons deployed close to the battlefield pose new risks. Command-and-control protocols are likely to be looser and more delegated. border incursion could swiftly escalate into something very much bigger and more lethal.</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> While any increase in trade and production has potential environmental impacts there are several specific environmental areas to which the TPP would particularly effect due to the current state of affairs of its potential members. Climate change is perhaps the most serious environmental concern in the 21st century and for TPP members. A November 2012 World Bank report predicts that the world temperature will increase by as much as 4ºC by 2100 if GHGs continue to rise at current rates.157 This past century has already seen a .8ºC increase and while governments have vowed to make efforts to limit the increase to only 2ºC the report does not believe the proposed global efforts if enacted will be effective enough to meet their goal.158 The current members of NAFTA Mexico Canada and the United States represent some of the worst offenders for GHG emissions. The three North American countries are among the top 15 largest emitters of GHGs and in 2009 the United States alone accounted for 18.9% of the world’s emissions.159 The past 20 years has seen emissions increase at an alarming rate as GHGs have increased by 17 26 and 37% in the United States Canada and Mexico respectively from 1990-2005.160 While the emissions from Asian countries excluding China and India are not nearly as large as the North American countries their emerging economies are expected to produce a very large increase in GHGs over the next couple decades.161 Climate change is an environmental concern of the TPP because of the increases of GHGs that are the result of trade liberalization. FTAs usually result in the increase of exports which requires increases in production and transportation. According to one study trade liberalization leads to an expected increase in exports of 3.36 percent per year which coincides with an increase of transport emissions and output related emissions of 3.4 and 4.3 percent per year respectively.162 Considering the TPP covers members that are separated by the Pacific Ocean the increase in transport related emissions could be especially significant as 37 percent of trade-related emissions come from international transport.163 </source> [/INST] <claim>The TPP will uniquely accelerate the speed of warming </claim> <psg>While any increase in trade and production has potential environmental impacts there are several specific environmental areas to which the TPP would particularly effect due to the current state of affairs of its potential members Climate change is perhaps the most serious environmental concern The current members of NAFTA Mexico Canada and the United States represent some of the worst offenders for GHG emissions While the emissions from Asian countries excluding China and India are not nearly as large as the North American countries their emerging economies are expected to produce a very large increase in GHGs over the next couple decades.1 Climate change is an environmental concern of the TPP because of the increases of GHGs that are the result of trade liberalization FTAs usually result in the increase of exports which requires increases in production and transportation. According to one study trade liberalization leads to an expected increase in exports of 3.36 percent per year which coincides with an increase of transport emissions and output related emissions of 3.4 and 4.3 percent per year respectively.16 Considering the TPP covers members that are separated by the Pacific Ocean the increase in transport related emissions could be especially significant as 37 percent of trade-related emissions come from international transport.163</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 looking abroad to promote economic growth the United States need go no further than its two closest neighbors Canada and Mexico. But the three governments have failed to pursue collaborative efforts to address a new generation of issues that were not anticipated by the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Instead of tackling new transnational problems such as regulatory harmonization together the United States and its neighbors reverted to old habits of bilateral ad hoc negotiations. Instead of forging a unified competitiveness strategy toward the European Union and East Asia each government has negotiated on its own. The three North American governments should create a seamless market one in which it is as easy and cheap for a Chicago merchant to sell products in Monterrey as in San Francisco. This requires negotiating a common external tariff eliminating restrictions on transportation and services funding new continental infrastructure and fostering a sense of community among the publics of the three countries that will also enhance the region's influence in negotiations with Asia and Europe. One estimate suggests that the benefits to the three countries would exceed $400 billion. </source> [/INST] <claim>The CP establishes a North American negotiating bloc that makes subsequent trade deals negotiable on more favorable economic terms – solves every aff advantage better than the TPP</claim> <psg>the United States need go no further than Canada and Mexico But the three overnments have failed to pursue collaborative efforts to address a new generation of issues that were not anticipated by NAFTA Instead of tackling new transnational problems such as regulatory harmonization together the United States and its neighbors reverted to old habits of bilateral ad hoc negotiations. The three North American governments should create a seamless market This requires negotiating a common external tariff eliminating restrictions on transportation and services funding new continental infrastructure and fostering a sense of community that will also enhance the region's influence in negotiations with Asia and Europe</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> Asia or North America The global economy seems increasingly divided into three main regions: a dynamic East Asian zone a crisis-prone eurozone and a semi-conscious North America. Each region faces formidable challenges but only North America seems unaware that its future competitiveness depends more on addressing its internal challenges than in gaining access to the others’ markets. Taken together these three regions constitute 80 percent of the world’s product and trade and more trade passes within each region than between them. A study of 348 of the largest multinational corporations in the world found that 154 firms were North American with 75 percent of their sales in North America. 127 were European with 64 percent of their sales in Europe and 67 firms were based in Asia with 76 percent of their sales in that region.1 Globalization is not as important as regionalism. Just as the ability of the United States to project power abroad depends in part on the security of its North American base so too can U.S.-based multinationals extend their reach into Asia and Europe backed by the power of the largest market in the world. The United States is the single largest national market but the combined gross national products of Canada ($1.6 trillion) and Mexico ($1 trillion) would rank them the fifth largest economy. Combined with the United States in 2010 the three had a nominal GDP of $17.1 trillion—larger than the $16.2 trillion of the 27-nation European Union.2 Over the past 15 years the regions have performed somewhat differently than most people think. Parts of East Asia have achieved the highest growth rates but as a whole the region’s share of world product declined from 25 percent to 22 percent. The European Union’s share improved from 26 percent to 28 percent. Most surprising the gross product of the three countries of North America soared from 29.5 percent of the world in 1994 when NAFTA began to 36 percent in 2001. Since then it has declined to 29 percent but it remains the largest of the three. Faced with the most urgent crisis the European Union has taken the boldest most long-term approach. Instead of fragmenting or retreating to unilateralism the region is trying to forge a fiscal union that will discipline its members’ budgets while investing in the region’s future. Whether the EU succeeds at this remains to be seen but no one can gainsay the effort. When faced with a financial crisis in 1997 Asia assembled a stabilization fund and is now negotiating a free-trade agreement among the ASEAN countries and the three principal economies of China Japan and South Korea. By contrast the three nations of North America took separate paths after the deep recession of 2008. Each pursued its own infrastructure strategies and policies. The United States insisted on a “Buy American” policy and an independent approach to the auto industry though most cars in the United States are literally North American being assembled with parts from all three countries. Lily Tomlin the Canadian comedienne once quipped “Together we are in this alone.” That applies to North America. Successive U.S. administrations have chosen to duplicate their work by addressing the same issues with each neighbor separately rather than addressing them more effectively together. At the same time the United States has been chasing a phantom in East Asia. At the APEC Summit in November 2011 the Obama Administration put its weight behind the “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement” (TPP) a free-trade agreement with eight countries whose combined gross product is a mere one-seventh that of Canada and Mexico. Of course the TPP is not a trade strategy or at least not a serious one. Its real purpose is to prevent China from unifying the Asian economy because it includes provisions—for example on state-owned operating enterprises—that China cannot accept. But that TPP strategy was pre-empted within a week of the APEC Summit when China Japan and South Korea joined the ASEAN countries in free-trade talks. Whatever its actual purpose a TPP is likely to take a long time to negotiate and yield comparatively little in terms of additional trade. Moreover like all trade agreements the Administration would have to invest time and considerable political capital to get it approved by Congress. That would be a waste of political capital compared to the North American alternative. Just do the math: U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico in 2010 exceeded $1 trillion 30 percent more than trade with China and Japan. More importantly the best markets to expand U.S. exports are not in Asia but with our immediate neighbors. For every additional dollar that Canada and Mexico buy from abroad more than eighty cents are U.S. exports and for every additional dollar we import from our neighbors a large proportion—about forty cents—is actually composed of our exports to them. In other words the balance of trade is less important with our neighbors than the overall volume since our production and marketing arrangements are already so intertwined. The opposite is true of our trade with Asia. The best strategy to compete against China double our exports and invigorate our economy is to deepen economic integration with our neighbors and to do it together rather than apart. Unfortunately the latter approach has prevailed since NAFTA. The three leaders mostly meet one-on-one in separate bilateral forums. The three North American leaders met as a group in Guadalajara in August 2009 and pledged to meet annually but they missed the next two years. On April 2 2012 Obama hosted Harper and Calderon in Washington. Their “Joint Statement” emphasized “deep economic historical cultural environmental and societal ties” but their initiatives remained packaged in two separate bilateral compartments. </source> [/INST] <claim>It solves every advantage substantially better than TPP integration</claim> <psg>The global economy seems increasingly divided into three main regions: a dynamic East Asian zone a crisis-prone eurozone and a semi-conscious North America only North America seems unaware that its future competitiveness depends more on addressing its internal challenges than in gaining access to the others’ markets. Globalization is not as important as regionalism Just as the ability of the United States to project power abroad depends in part on the security of its North American base so too can U.S.-based multinationals extend their reach into Asia and Europe backed by the power of the largest market in the world The United States is the single largest national market but the combined gross national products of Canada and Mexico would rank them the fifth largest economy Combined the three had a GDP of $17.1 trillion—larger than the $16.2 trillion of the 27-nation European Union the three nations of North America took separate paths after the deep recession of 2008 Each pursued its own infrastructure strategies and policies Lily Tomlin once quipped Together we are in this alone That applies to North America Successive U.S. administrations have chosen to duplicate their work by addressing the same issues with each neighbor separately rather than addressing them more effectively together. the United States has been chasing a phantom in East Asia the TPP) a free-trade agreement with eight countries whose combined gross product is a mere one-seventh that of Canada and Mexico the TPP is not a trade strategy Its real purpose is to prevent China from unifying the Asian economy because it includes provisions that China cannot accept that TPP strategy was pre-empted within a week of the APEC Summit when China Japan and South Korea joined the ASEAN countries in free-trade talks. a TPP is likely to take a long time to negotiate and yield comparatively little in terms of additional trade. Just do the math: U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico in 2010 exceeded $1 trillion 30 percent more than trade with China and Japan the best markets to expand U.S. exports are not in Asia but with our immediate neighbors For every additional dollar that Canada and Mexico buy from abroad more than eighty cents are U.S. exports and for every additional dollar we import from our neighbors a large proportion—about forty cents—is actually composed of our exports to them The best strategy to compete against China double our exports and invigorate our economy is to deepen economic integration with our neighbors and to do it together rather than apart Unfortunately the latter approach has prevailed since NAFTA</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 about Latin or Central America or the Caribbean? The truth is that North America already constitutes a coherent economic entity representing 90 percent of the hemisphere's economy and 87 percent of the trade. South America is fractured in terms of ideology and trade patterns. If the three countries of North America can find a strategy that lifts Mexico to the first world economically then together they should apply that same formula to Central America and the Caribbean as two units rather than more than twenty countries. If that also succeeds South America will be knocking on the door and the Free Trade of the Americas can be resurrected. If North America cannot succeed in Mexico then the model will not be attractive to the rest of the region. </source> [/INST] <claim>The CP creates an effective model for expanding trade with Latin America</claim> <psg>What about Latin America or the Caribbean? The truth is that North America already constitutes a coherent economic entity representing 90 percent of the hemisphere's economy If the three countries of North America can find a strategy that lifts Mexico to the first world economically then they should apply that same formula to Central America and the Caribbean as two units rather than more than twenty countries If North America cannot succeed in Mexico then the model will not be attractive to the rest of the region</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> China maintains a good relationship with Cuba in politics and their cooperative relations are growing rapidly in economy and trade Chinese Ambassador to Cuba Liu Yuqin has said. Liu made the remarks in an interview earlier this week with Xinhua ahead of the upcoming Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping's visit to the Caribbean island country. Xi is scheduled to arrive in Havana on Saturday evening. 'China-Cuba relations have been in good shape in various areas in recent years with frequent exchanges of high-level visits ' she said. Noting the rapid growth in bilateral economic and trade ties Liu said that China has become Cuba's second largest trade partner after Venezuela while Cuba is one of China's major trade partners in Latin America. 'Meanwhile the two sides have carried out cooperative projects in some areas ' she said. 'China sent agriculturists to Cuba a decade ago and helped set up jointly-funded farms in eastern Cuba to grow rice ' Liu said. And the two countries are also carrying out some projects in China. In Beijing China's capital the two sides are engaged in joint production of anti-cancer drugs while in northeast China they are running a joint venture on other pharmaceuticals she said. 'All in all our cooperation has been fruitful ' said Liu. On political relations Liu said that Cuba established diplomatic relations with China in 1960 becoming the first nation in Latin America to foster ties with New China. 'We'll never forget Cuba's support and help at the time when China was in difficulties ' she said. China has been firmly on Cuba's side in its struggle against the blockade policy imposed by the United States some 50 years ago while Cuba has offered solid support for China on major issues of core interests such as the issues of Taiwan and Tibet Liu said. 'Cuba has always been China's close friend comrade and partner ' she said. On Cuba's current economic reform Liu said that the process of the reform is 'extremely positive.' 'Cuba is exploring a development path suited to its national conditions ' she said. Against the backdrop of profound changes on the international scene Liu wished the Cuban people greater achievement on the road they have chosen. </source> [/INST] <claim>China-Cuban Relations Continue to Remain Strong</claim> <psg>China maintains a good relationship with Cuba in politics and their cooperative relations are growing rapidly in economy and trade Chinese Ambassador to Cuba Liu Yuqin has said. . 'China-Cuba relations have been in good shape in various areas in recent years with frequent exchanges of high-level visits ' Noting the rapid growth in bilateral economic and trade ties Liu said that China has become Cuba's second largest trade partner after Venezuela while Cuba is one of China's major trade partners in Latin America. 'Meanwhile the two sides have carried out cooperative projects in some areas ' China sent agriculturists to Cuba a decade ago and helped set up jointly-funded farms in eastern Cuba to grow rice ' the two countries are also carrying out some projects in China. the two sides are engaged in joint production of anti-cancer drugs they are running a joint venture on other pharmaceuticals 'All in all our cooperation has been fruitful ' said Liu. On political relations Liu said that Cuba established diplomatic relations with China in 1960 becoming the first nation in Latin America to foster ties with New China. 'We'll never forget Cuba's support and help at the time when China was in difficulties ' she said. China has been firmly on Cuba's side in its struggle against the blockade policy imposed by the United States some 50 years ago while Cuba has offered solid support for China on major issues of core interests such as the issues of Taiwan and Tibet Liu said. 'Cuba has always been China's close friend comrade and partner ' she said. On Cuba's current economic reform Liu said that the process of the reform is 'extremely positive.' 'Cuba is exploring a development path suited to its national conditions ' Liu wished the Cuban people greater achievement on the road they have chosen.</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> Cuban President Raúl Castro is looking to strengthen the country's economic ties to Beijing as it moves to liberalize its economy somewhat and limit its energy dependence on Venezuela whose leader is battling cancer and faces a tough election at home. Cuba's President Raúl Castro right and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao inspect an honor guard during a welcoming ceremony in Beijing on Thursday. Mr. Castro landed in Beijing on Wednesday to meet with China's top leaders before heading out to Vietnam on Saturday touring onetime Communist fellow travelers that have revamped their economies. On Thursday Cuban representatives signed economic technology and agricultural agreements with Chinese officials though few specifics were disclosed. 'Currently relations are maturing with each passing day ' Mr. Castro said Thursday in an appearance with China President Hu Jintao. 'The relationship has passed the test of time.' Since 2011 Cuba has begun encouraging the formation of private enterprises permitting property and automobile sales and reducing the role of the state in agriculture. Still the Cuban economy grew less than 3% in 2011 nowhere near the pace of Asian nations. Chinese technocrats and academics are working on a dozen projects to help remake the Cuban economy including infrastructure transportation and energy said Xu Shicheng a Cuba expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. While Cuba has made progress 'most importantly there is a need to update the people's mentality ' he said. 'Many people in Cuba think that updating the private sector means adopting capitalism. It will take Cuba a long time to accomplish what China did.' </source> [/INST] <claim>Cuba looks to Chin to strengthen their economy</claim> <psg>Cuban President Raúl Castro is looking to strengthen the country's economic ties to Beijing as it moves to liberalize its economy and limit its energy dependence on Venezuela Castro landed in Beijing on Wednesday to meet with China's top leaders before heading out to Vietnam on Saturday Cuban representatives signed economic technology and agricultural agreements with Chinese officials though few specifics were disclosed. Since 2011 Cuba has begun encouraging the formation of private enterprises permitting property and automobile sales and reducing the role of the state in agriculture. Still the Cuban economy grew less than 3% in 2011 nowhere near the pace of Asian nations. Chinese technocrats and academics are working on a dozen projects to help remake the Cuban economy including infrastructure transportation and energy said Xu Shicheng a Cuba expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.</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’ embargo against Cuba is like the war on drugs – everyone in Washington realizes the policy is shortsighted and ineffective yet nobody steps forward to change it. The Soviets appear increasingly unlikely to use Cuba as a conduit to spread international communism throughout the Americas. Anyone worth their salt on the Hill from the State Department or the Treasury will privately admit as much. Yet the policy remains firmly entrenched. The same Hill staffer that admits the anachronistic fallacy underlying the Cold War campaign will simply shrug it off as an inevitable fact of life: death taxes and the embargo on Cuba. The US stubbornly sticks to a bad policy because it is good politics. Yes the War on Drugs is counterproductive but as long as “tough-on-drugs” continues to poll well the electoral reward for reform seems scant. Similarly anything but the hardest line on Cuba could cost either party Florida and in turn a national election. This is unfortunate. Winds of change are stirring in Cuba yet the US’s stubbornness embodied in the 1996 Helms-Burton act could lead Uncle Sam to blow the opportunity. </source> [/INST] <claim>U.S. Not Willing to Lift the Embargo on Cuba-Too Stubborn</claim> <psg>The U S embargo against Cuba is like the war on drugs everyone in Washington realizes the policy is shortsighted and ineffective yet nobody steps forward to change it the anachronistic fallacy underlying the Cold War campaign will simply shrug it off as an inevitable fact of life: death taxes and the embargo on Cuba. The US stubbornly sticks to a bad policy because it is good politics. Winds of change are stirring in Cuba yet the US’s stubbornness embodied in the 1996 Helms-Burton act could lead Uncle Sam to blow the opportunity.</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 President Xi Jinping's upcoming visit to Mexico will further enhance mutual understanding and friendly ties between the two countries Mexican Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Alberto de Icaza Gonzalez said here Friday. Strengthening relations with China has always been one of the priorities of the Mexican government Carlos de Icaza told a news briefing with Chinese journalists. Mexico values Xi's visit the official said adding that the Chinese president is the first foreign head of state to pay a state visit to Mexico after Mexican President Pena Nieto took office in December. Bilateral relations between China and Mexico are dynamic De Icaza said expressing confidence that Xi's visit will further strengthen the ties and cooperation in various fields. Mexico has been working with China to build a more suitable modern and agile framework of the bilateral relationship he said noting both Mexico and China are emerging markets that play an important role on the world stage. De Icaza said Mexico and China have also been exploring ways to increase Chinese investment in Mexico. He referred to Xi's visit as an opportunity to further review and have a fresh look at bilateral relations established over 40 years ago. We will wait President Xi with open arms. Your visit will contribute to a better mutual understanding between Chinese and Mexican peoples ' he said. The Chinese president is now in Trinidad and Tobago the first leg of his three-nation Latin American tour which will also take him to Costa Rica and Mexico. Afterwards Xi will fly to the U.S. state of California for a summit meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama on June 7-8 at Sunnylands the Walter and Leonore Annenberg estate in Rancho Mirage. </source> [/INST] <claim>China-Mexico Relations are Strong</claim> <psg>Chinese President Xi Jinping's upcoming visit to Mexico will further enhance mutual understanding and friendly ties between the two countries Strengthening relations with China has always been one of the priorities of the Mexican government the Chinese president is the first foreign head of state to pay a state visit to Mexico after Mexican President Pena Nieto took office in December. Bilateral relations between China and Mexico are dynamic De Icaza said that Xi's visit will further strengthen the ties and cooperation in various fields. Mexico has been working with China to build a more suitable modern and agile framework of the bilateral relationship Mexico and China are emerging markets that play an important role on the world stage De Icaza said Mexico and China have also been exploring ways to increase Chinese investment in Mexico. Xi's visit as an opportunity to further review and have a fresh look at bilateral relations established over 40 years ago. We will wait President Xi with open arms. Your visit will contribute to a better mutual understanding between Chinese and Mexican peoples </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 the People’s Republic of China took a further step forward in strengthening their bilateral relations last Monday when Vice President Li Yuancho visited the Caribbean country as part of his recent tour of South America. “We have come to amplify our political similarities as well as our areas of cooperation reciprocal benefit and shared profits” said VP Li upon arriving at the Presidential Palace of Miraflores in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas. Li was met by President Nicolas Maduro and his executive cabinet in order to advance projects that will “satisfy the essential needs of our people” wrote Venezuela’s second-in-command Vice President Jorge Arreaza via his Twitter account. Four new accords were inked between the governments of Caracas and Beijing during the visit involving hydrocarbon petrochemical telecommunication and mineral development in Venezuela. Importantly the two allies agreed to a proposal for the construction of a new port in the central state of Carabobo near Venezuela’s Pequiven chemical plant that forms part of the nation’s publicly owned oil company Pdvsa. A contract outlining the financing of the project by the Import and Export Bank of China was signed by the two leaders in order to define the terms of the port’s construction. “Our industry will have a new maritime port to provide services to the ammonium and urea [Pequiven] plant. As such we will continue to project growth in our petrochemical [sector]” the Venezuelan President said. Further agreements were penned that will tighten Venezuela-China collaboration in telecommunications and technology including the manufacture of cellular phones and circuitry for computers. “This visit has been very fruitful. We will never forget the loving support that China gave to our Comandante [Chavez]. We will be loyal to the work that has been done” Maduro said after the dialogue. Chinese-Venezuelan relations have been growing steadily since 1999 when then President Hugo Chavez began to implement a new foreign policy for the South American country that sought to expand trade partners internationally and move away from dependency on the United States. This policy shift is slated to continue under the Maduro government following the former Foreign Minister of the Chavez administration’s victory in Venezuela’s April 14th elections. According to the recently elected president his country’s relationship with China is “a strategic alliance for shared development which began at zero and now passes $10 billion in commercial trade”. Apart from trade Maduro also informed that intellectual exchanges form an essential part of the alliance. As such a group of 50 Venezuelans will be sent to China to study economic initiatives in key areas “to encourage development of [our] productive forces”. Members of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela will also travel to the Asian nation to receive social and political training from members of the Chinese Communist Party. The move is meant to promote dialogue and fortify the push for a new breed of socialism in the OPEC member nation following the example set by Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez. “We are convinced that Socialism of the 21st Century is the path to social economic educational cultural human and holistic prosperity in Venezuela” Maduro declared. </source> [/INST] <claim>CP TEXT: China should *insert plan*</claim> <psg>Venezuela and the People’s Republic of China took a further step forward in strengthening their bilateral relations when Vice President Li Yuancho visited the country We have come to amplify our political similarities as well as our areas of cooperation reciprocal benefit and shared profits” said VP Li Four new accords were inked between the governments of Caracas and Beijing during the visit involving hydrocarbon petrochemical telecommunication and mineral development in Venezuela. Importantly the two allies agreed to a proposal for the construction of a new port in the central state of Carabobo near Venezuela’s Pequiven chemical plant that forms part of the nation’s publicly owned oil company Pdvsa. A contract outlining the financing of the project by the Import and Export Bank of China was signed by the two leaders in order to define the terms of the port’s construction. “Our industry will have a new maritime port to provide services to the ammonium and urea [Pequiven] plant. As such we will continue to project growth in our petrochemical [sector]” the Venezuelan President said. Further agreements were penned that will tighten Venezuela-China collaboration in telecommunications and technology including the manufacture of cellular phones and circuitry for computers. “This visit has been very fruitful. We will never forget the loving support that China gave to our Comandante [Chavez]. We will be loyal to the work that has been done” Maduro said Chinese-Venezuelan relations have been growing steadily since 1999 when then President Hugo Chavez began to implement a new foreign policy for the country that sought to expand trade partners internationally and move away from dependency on the United States. This policy shift is slated to continue under the Maduro government According to the president his country’s relationship with China is “a strategic alliance for shared development which began at zero and now passes $10 billion in commercial trade” Maduro also informed that intellectual exchanges form an essential part of the alliance. As such a group of 50 Venezuelans will be sent to China to study economic initiatives in key areas “to encourage development of [our] productive forces”. Members of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela will also travel to the Asian nation to receive social and political training from members of the Chinese Communist Party. The move is meant to promote dialogue and fortify the push for a new breed of socialism in the OPEC member nation following the example set by Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez. “We are convinced that Socialism of the 21st Century is the path to social economic educational cultural human and holistic prosperity in Venezuela” Maduro declared.</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 Vice-President Li Yuanchao and Venezuelan Minister of Petroleum and Mining Rafael Ramírez gathered in Beijing on Tuesday. During the meeting the Chinese official regarded energy cooperation as 'essential' for bilateral economic relations. According to Chinese news agency Xinhua Li said the two nations 'need to develop current agreements and bring China-Venezuela relations to a higher level.' The two leaders were expected to discuss the final details regarding a Chinese loan amounting to USD 4 billion to boost production in Petrosinovensa a China-Venezuela joint venture operating in the Orinoco Oil Belt </source> [/INST] <claim>China and Venezuela Look to Further Their Relations</claim> <psg>Chinese Vice-President Li Yuanchao and Venezuelan Minister of Petroleum and Mining Rafael Ramírez gathered in Beijing the Chinese official regarded energy cooperation as 'essential' for bilateral economic relations. Li said the two nations 'need to develop current agreements and bring China-Venezuela relations to a higher level.' The two leaders were expected to discuss the final details regarding a Chinese loan amounting to USD 4 billion to boost production in Petrosinovensa a China-Venezuela joint venture operating in the Orinoco Oil Belt</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 China’s economic and political footprint grows across Latin America and Africa worrying some and enriching others Alvaro Ruiz Sanchez has his eyes on the prize. President of OrOctrading a consulting firm Sanchez - sporting thick cufflinks with the red Chinese flag and a dark blazer - has been teaching Venezuelan companies about doing business with the world’s second-largest economy. “Usually manufactured goods from China are coming into Latin America and raw materials are going out ” Sanchez told Al Jazeera. “Venezuela has posted a positive trade balance with China because of oil exports but without those we would have a major deficit.” Trade between Venezuela holder of the world’s largest oil reserves and China grew to $18bn in 2011 a 24-fold increase from 2003 reported China Daily a government-backed newspaper. Venezuela exports more than 500 000 barrels of oil to the Asian giant daily according to government figures and plans to increase that to one million by 2015. The two countries had signed 300 bilateral agreements including 80 major projects according to a University of Miami study in 2010. </source> [/INST] <claim>China-Venezuela Trade Expected to increase by 2015</claim> <psg>. “Venezuela has posted a positive trade balance with China because of oil exports but without those we would have a major deficit.” Trade between Venezuela holder of the world’s largest oil reserves and China grew to $18bn in 2011 a 24-fold increase from 2003 . Venezuela exports more than 500 000 barrels of oil to the Asian giant daily according to government figures and plans to increase that to one million by 2015. The two countries had signed 300 bilateral agreements including 80 major projects according to a University of Miami study in 2010.</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 President Xi Jinping is making the most of his four-country tour of the Americas to position China as a competitor to the US and Taiwan's economic influence in the region. Xi arrives in Mexico Tuesday for a three-day visit in which he and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto are expected to discuss their economic ties. The two nations are economic partners but also competitors particularly when it comes to exports to the United States. Mexico and China both enjoy strong exports to the American market but Mexico itself has been flooded with cheap Chinese goods that are displacing domestic goods. 'China is a complicated case' for Mexico Aldo Muñoz Armenta political science professor at theAutonomous University of Mexico State told USA Today. 'It's not the healthiest (relationship) in diplomatic terms because the balance of trade has been so unequal.' When it comes to economic influence China may be gaining the upper hand in Latin America. China is increasing its funding to the region just as the US has been coming under pressure to cut aid and investment. </source> [/INST] <claim>US under pressure to cut Latin America Investment China is gaining regional upper hand.</claim> <psg>Chinese President Xi Jinping is making the most of his four-country tour of the Americas to position China as a competitor to the US and Taiwan's economic influence in the region. When it comes to economic influence China may be gaining the upper hand in Latin America. China is increasing its funding to the region just as the US has been coming under pressure to cut aid and investment.</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> Drug trafficking and related violence have largely shaped the binational relationship over the past six years. During his first term President Obama correctly identified the “shared responsibility” of the United States for the horrific drug-related violence in Mexico. But the Obama administration abysmally failed in shouldering its responsibility. By continuing the military-oriented aid of the Bush administration’s Mérida Initiative the Obama administration contributed to the increase of drug-related violence and human rights violations in Mexico. By encouraging and largely directing the Calderón government’s military-directed drug war the Obama administration—along with the Calderón government and Mexico’s security forces—turned large parts of Mexico into killing grounds where assault weapons not the rule of law are the only instruments of governance and control. Despite the Obama administration’s assessment that Mexican drug trafficking organizations constitute a security threat not only to Mexico but also to the United States and to the nations of Central America President Obama has failed to take sufficient measures to stop the flow of military-grade weaponry to organized criminal organizations and bandits in the region. The failure to stand up for gun control until the Newtown massacre is emblematic of President Obama’s lead-from-behind posture in many controversial domestic issues including immigration. In truly addressing the shared responsibility of the United States for violence in Mexico—which has led to the killing or disappearance of nearly 100 000 Mexicans (overwhelmingly civilians) since 2006—President Obama needs to take the lead in finally ending the drug prohibition era and the related U.S.-supported drug wars. Similarly President Peña Nieto must as part of his declared commitment to “crime prevention” and ending the military-led drug war call for drug legalization in the United States joining other Latin American leaders as well as Javier Sicilia and the Movement for Justice with Peace and Dignity. Although not yet calling for the end to the drug-prohibition induced drug wars Peña Nieto has rightly ended the wholesale drug-interdiction campaigns and drug-kingpin targeting initiated by Calderón and the U.S. government and instead committed his administration to a violence-reduction and law-enforcement strategy. While the shape of the strategy remains unclear dramatically reducing the pervasive and proactive military presence throughout much of Mexico has been an appropriate first step. The Mexican president has narrowed the window of U.S. involvement in intelligence counternarcotics operations and Mexican military affairs—a clear rebuff to the U.S. government. The Obama administration may be justifiably concerned about the ability of the new government to diminish the power and reach of criminal organizations built largely on drug-trafficking yet President Obama should in a gesture of solidarity and shared responsibility acknowledge the systemic flaws in U.S. counternarcotics and anti-organized crime strategies. Pervasive patterns of human rights violations impunity and police and judicial corruption/reform should be top among U.S. concerns at the presidential meeting. At the same time however President Obama should acknowledge that the United States’ four-decade strategy of attempting to reduce the flow of illicit drugs has not only failed but also led to a raft of adverse consequences. </source> [/INST] <claim>US responsible for Mexico drug related violence—strategy failing </claim> <psg>Drug trafficking and related violence have largely shaped the binational relationship over the past six years. Obama correctly identified the “shared responsibility” of the United States for the horrific drug-related violence in Mexico. Obama administration contributed to the increase of drug-related violence and human rights violations in Mexico Obama administration turned large parts of Mexico into killing grounds where assault weapons not the rule of law are the only instruments of governance and control. Obama has failed to take sufficient measures to stop the flow of military-grade weaponry to organized criminal organizations and bandits in the region. the United States for violence in Mexico has led to the killing or disappearance of nearly 100 000 Mexicans the United States’ four-decade strategy of attempting to reduce the flow of illicit drugs has not only failed but also led to a raft of adverse consequences.</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> Mr. Obama’s remarks during the opening ceremony at the Summit of the Americas are the clearest signal in decades that the United States is willing to change direction in its dealings with Cuba. They capped a dizzying series of developments this week including surprisingly warm words between Raul Castro Cuba’s leader and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Other leaders here said that in watching Mr. Obama extend his hand to Cuba they felt they were witnessing a historic shift. And in another twist Cuba’s strongest ally at the summit President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela no fan of the United States was photographed at the meeting giving Mr. Obama a hearty handclasp and a broad smile. Cuba is not on the official agenda here. indeed Cuba which has been barred from the Organization of American States since 1962 is not even on the guest list. But leaders in the hemisphere have spent months planning to make Cuba an issue here. The White House was well aware that if Mr. Obama did not address it head on the issue would overwhelm the rest of the summit gathering. This week the president opened the door to the discussions by abandoning longstanding restrictions on the ability of Cuban-Americans to travel freely to the island and send money to relatives there. “I know there is a longer journey that must be traveled in overcoming decades of mistrust but there are critical steps we can take toward a new day ” Mr. Obama said adding that he was “prepared to have my administration engage with the Cuban government on a wide range of issues — from human rights free speech and democratic reform to drugs migration and economic issues.” Mr. Obama’s message was not entirely new. he has said in the past that he was willing to engage with Cuba. But making a public pledge before leaders of 33 other nations many of whom he had not yet met gave his words added heft. He came here with the aim of reaching out to leaders in a region that felt ignored by the United States during the Bush years. Just as he campaigned on the theme of change when running for the White House he made change a theme of his speech here saying: “I didn’t come here to debate the past. I came here to deal with the future.” He said the United States needed to acknowledge long-held suspicions that it has interfered in the affairs of other countries. But departing from his prepared text he also said the region’s countries needed to cease their own historic demonization of the United States for everything from economic crises to drug violence. “That also means we can’t blame the United States for every problem that arises in the hemisphere ” he said. “That’s part of the bargain. That’s the old way and we need a new way.” On Cuba the president’s words were as notable for what he said as for what he did not say. He did not scold or berate the Cuban government for holding political prisoners as his predecessor George W. Bush often did. But he also did not say that he was willing to support Cuba’s membership in the Organization of American States or lift the 47-year-old trade embargo against Cuba as some hemisphere leaders here want him to do. And his press secretary Robert Gibbs speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on the way here pointed out that Cuba needed to take concrete action to “bring greater freedom to the Cuban people.” In his speech Mr. Obama gave a nod toward these issues although not explicitly. “Let me be clear ” he said. “I am not interested in talking for the sake of talking. But I do believe we can move U.S.-Cuban relations in a new direction.” </source> [/INST] <claim>Obama wants to move U.S./Cuba relationship in a positive direction</claim> <psg>Obama’s remarks during the Summit of the Americas are the clearest signal in decades that the U S is willing to change direction in its dealings with Cuba They capped a series of developments this week including surprisingly warm words between Castro and Clinton leaders said watching Obama extend his hand to Cuba felt they were witnessing a historic shift. And in another twist Cuba’s strongest ally at the summit President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela no fan of the United States was photographed at the meeting giving Mr. Obama a hearty handclasp and a broad smile. the president abandon longstanding restrictions on the ability of Cuban-Americans to travel freely to the island and send money to relatives there. “I know there is a longer journey that must be traveled in overcoming decades of mistrust but there are critical steps we can take toward a new day ” Mr. Obama said adding that he was “prepared to have my administration engage with the Cuban government on a wide range of issues — from human rights free speech and democratic reform to drugs migration and economic issues . he has said in the past that he was willing to engage with Cuba “I didn’t come here to debate the past. I came here to deal with the future.” He said “I am not interested in talking for the sake of talking. But I do believe we can move U.S.-Cuban relations in a new direction.”</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 June 5 Secretary of State John Kerry raised eyebrows when he met with his Venezuelan counterpart Foreign Minister Elías Jaua. Both were in Guatemala to attend the recent General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS). The pair’s meeting was the first high-level public meeting between the two countries since U.S. president Barack Obama and former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez shook hands and had a brief exchange at the fifth Summit of the Americas in 2009.¶ The Venezuelan government requested the meeting which lasted 40 minutes and was followed by the announcement that the governments would embark on high-level talks aimed at improving bilateral relations. Of particular note both sides expressed hope that the reciprocal appointment of ambassadors would take place in short order. Chávez expelled the U.S. ambassador in 2008 and the United States retaliated in kind.¶ All of this is complicated by the outcome of the Venezuelan presidential election on April 14. The official results have named Nicolás Maduro the winner having beaten opposition leader Henrique Capriles by a slim 1.5 percentage points—though the opposition continues to contest both the results and the audit. </source> [/INST] <claim>U.S and Venezuelan governments focused on improving bilateral relations</claim> <psg>On June 5 Secretary of State Kerry raised eyebrows when he met with Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jaua The pair’s meeting was the first high-level public meeting between the two countries since Obama and Chávez had a brief exchange at the Summit of the Americas in 2009. The Venezuelan government requested the meeting which was followed by the announcement that the governments would embark on high-level talks aimed at improving bilateral relations.</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> Our analysis shows that the textbooks’ master narrative constitutes a power-evasive discourse. The main discursive formula of this avoidance of ‘power and history’ is the naturalisation of core processes such as colonialism slavery and racism that is the naturalisation of the idea of Europe and of its central role in the development of modern capitalist world-system scientific thought and liberal democracy read as achievements within a progress rationale (Wallerstein 1997). Focusing on this evasiveness is crucial to understand how Eurocentrism is constructed and reproduced and to challenge the idea that a more critical pedagogy and history (as well as other disciplines) can be achieved by merely including other perspectives and versions. Only thus can we overcome the process of critique as a matter of ‘false’ and ‘erroneous’ representations and engage with the power relations that pervade the production of knowledge and interpretations. </source> [/INST] <claim>Status quo education focus on the view point of the powerful and not those marginalized by euro centrism. Learning about euro centrism is can be solved via the affirmative. </claim> <psg>Our analysis shows that the textbooks’ master narrative constitutes a power-evasive discourse. The main discursive formula of this avoidance of ‘power and history’ is the naturalisation of core processes such as colonialism slavery and racism that is the naturalisation of the idea of Europe and of its central role in the development of modern capitalist world-system scientific thought and liberal democracy read as achievements within a progress rationale Focusing on this evasiveness is crucial to understand how Eurocentrism is constructed and reproduced and to challenge the idea that a more critical pedagogy and history (as well as other disciplines) can be achieved by merely including other perspectives and versions Only thus can we overcome the process of critique as a matter of ‘false’ and ‘erroneous’ representations and engage with the power relations that pervade the production of knowledge and interpretations.</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> Ongoing battles over the content of social studies classes in public schools and the canon in liberal arts education are thrusting the term “eurocentrism” toward the mainstream of political discourse in the United States. It is a concept which has been fairly easy for those of us on the left to become comfortable with but that sense of ease could actually pose a problem of complacency for revolutionary socialists. The fact is that the critique of eurocentrism is still in its early stages and that the extraordinarily pervasive hold this framework has on the thinking of everyone raised in Western societies is not fully appreciated. And the problem of what kind of worldview it is to be replaced with has barely been considered. </source> [/INST] <claim>The aff is key to deconstruct Eurocentric frameworks – academia is a key starting point</claim> <psg>Ongoing battles over the content of social studies classes in public schools and the canon in liberal arts education are thrusting the term “eurocentrism” toward the mainstream of political discourse in the United States The fact is that the critique of eurocentrism is still in its early stages the extraordinarily pervasive hold this framework has on the thinking of everyone raised in Western societies is not fully appreciated</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> It is our view that this liberal tale of a ‘kaleidoscope’ of perspectives has been convincingly deemed insufficient and inefficient as the mere inclusion of ‘other’ perspectives is not sufficient to overcome the hegemony of certain narratives. We thus argue for the need to open up the debate on knowledge and power engaging with the frames of interpretation within which such perspectives are to be included. Thus following Cornel West’s argument this article aims at showing the theoretical and analytical relevance of the notion of Eurocentrism for understanding the ways in which ‘race’ and racism are rendered (in)visible in the debate on nationhood citizenship and democracy. We argue that the effectiveness of Eurocentrism lies not so much in prejudiced representations of the ‘other’ but in the depoliticisation of power relations that make plausible such (mis)representations. According to Wendy Brown (2006): Depoliticization involves removing a political phenomenon from comprehension of its historical emergence and from a recognition of the powers that produce and contour it. No matter its particular form and mechanics depoliticization always eschews power and history in the representation of its subjects (p. 15 original emphasis). </source> [/INST] <claim>The affirmative speech is key to reveal the depoliticized representations of the topic</claim> <psg>It is our view that this liberal tale of a ‘kaleidoscope’ of perspectives has been convincingly deemed insufficient and inefficient as the mere inclusion of ‘other’ perspectives is not sufficient to overcome the hegemony of certain narratives. We thus argue for the need to open up the debate on knowledge and power engaging with the frames of interpretation within which such perspectives are to be included Eurocentrism for understanding the ways in which ‘race’ and racism are rendered (in)visible in the debate on nationhood citizenship and democracy. We argue that the effectiveness of Eurocentrism lies not so much in prejudiced representations of the ‘other’ but in the depoliticisation of power relations that make plausible such (mis)representations Depoliticization involves removing a political phenomenon from comprehension of its historical emergence and from a recognition of the powers that produce and contour it. No matter its particular form and mechanics depoliticization always eschews power and history in the representation of its subjects</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> Ideas from academia can shape policy at all stages of public policymaking: the articulation formulation implementation and evaluation of policies. 6 The political uses of expert knowledge are not limited to improving or modifying a given course of action. Scholarly outputs can also help legitimate the workings of an institution and substantiate particular policy positions while undermining others. </source> [/INST] <claim>We are political – none of their offense assumes we affirm certain actions. Because we endorse the removal of protectionist measures our criticism is directly relevant and important to political action</claim> <psg>Ideas from academia can shape policy at all stages of public policymaking The political uses of expert knowledge are not limited to improving or modifying a given course of action Scholarly outputs can also help legitimate the workings of an institution and substantiate particular policy positions while undermining others.</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> Under the right circumstances some scholars and their work have affected one or more of the four general stages of public policy decision-making processes— the articulation formulation implementation and/or evaluation of a given policy. This discussion also suggests that the use of expert knowledge on the part of practitioners is not reducible to instrumental considerations aimed at modifying or altogether changing the substance of a given policy. Scholarly outputs may also provide a legitimizing function to policymaking—as expert knowledge can enhance an organization’s legitimacy and potentially bolster its claim to resources or jurisdiction over a particular policy area as in the case of the concept of “collaborative border management” between Mexico and the United States and that of the Progresa/Oportunidades anti-poverty program in Mexico. Scholarly outputs may also have a substantiating function—as expert knowledge can help substantiate preferences over a given course of action while undermining that of political rivals as reflected in the case of Chile’s decision to oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq while awaiting U.S. congressional approval for a free trade agreement. </source> [/INST] <claim>Chile proves criticism is key to assess the value of international politics – prefer our region specific evidence</claim> <psg>some scholars and their work have affected one or more of the four general stages of public policy decision-making processes— the articulation formulation implementation and/or evaluation of a given policy . Scholarly outputs may also provide a legitimizing function to policymaking—as expert knowledge can enhance an organization’s legitimacy and potentially bolster its claim to resources or jurisdiction over a particular policy area Scholarly outputs may also have a substantiating function as reflected in the case of Chile’s decision to oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq while awaiting U.S. congressional approval for a free trade agreement.</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> Missing from the literature on scholar–practitioner interactions in IR is a more systematic focus on the experience of those trained social scientists with professional trajectories as such that have often played important roles in government. 3 The experience of these “in-and-outers” suggests that the gap might not be as wide as it may seem. In the field of Inter-American affairs for example scholars both in Latin America and in North America often have access to policymaking as direct as those of business interests. 4 Two of the most influential Latin American presidents of the last 30 years Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil and Ricardo Lagos of Chile have social science PhDs. President Rafael Correa of Ecuador has a PhD in Economics. Three of the last four Mexican presidents— Carlos Salinas Ernesto Zedillo and Felipe Calderon—have had graduate training in the social sciences. Most Latin American Finance Ministers and Central Bank presidents in recent years have PhDs in Economics. Some of the best known Latin American foreign policy practitioners of recent years—former For eign Ministers Jorge G. Castaneda of Mexico and Celso Lafer of Brazil as well as Mexico’s late Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Rico and Professor Marco Aurelio Garcia of Brazil personal foreign policy advisor to Presidents Lula and Dilma Rousseff—came from academia. Chile which has had one of the most noteworthy international policies in recent years has relied heavily on social scientists: former Foreign Ministers Jose ´ Miguel Insulza (now Secretary General of the Organization of American States) Ignacio Walker and Juan Gabriel Valdes. former Deputy Foreign Ministers Angel Flisfisch and Heraldo Munoz (now head of the United Nations Development Program’s Regional Bureau for Latin America) for example. </source> [/INST] <claim>Analysis of policy is necessary to produce an effective engagement strategy – empirics prove</claim> <psg>Missing from the literature on scholar–practitioner interactions in IR is a more systematic focus The experience of these “in-and-outers” suggests that the gap might not be as wide as it may seem. In the field of Inter-American affairs scholars both in Latin America and in North America often have access to policymaking Some of the best known Latin American foreign policy practitioners of recent years came from academia Chile has relied heavily on social scientists</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> Imagine the world around 1500. It was a polycentric and non-capitalist world. There were many civilisations from China to sub-Saharan Africa but none of them were globally dominant. At about this time a radical change took place in global history that we can summarise in two points: the emergence of the Atlantic commercial circuit and the fact that the West began to control the writing of global history. Between then and now Western civilisation in the sense we understand it today was founded and formed. </source> [/INST] <claim>Eurocentrism lies at the root of capitalism – history proves that dealing with capitalism requires a confrontation of Western epistemologies</claim> <psg>the world around 1500 was a polycentric and non-capitalist world There were many civilisations but none of them were globally dominant a radical change took place in global history the emergence of the Atlantic commercial circuit and the fact that the West began to control the writing of global history</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 happened has much to do with the increasing complicity of Christianity (and Christian knowledge) with the force of developing capitalism and its consequences in the cultural industry: map making book publishing and circulation the authority of the printed book etc. Without that partnership the outcome of capitalism and the world in which we are living in today with the Americas would have certainly been different. History is an institution that legitimizes the telling of stories of happenings simultaneously silencing other stories as well as stories of the silence of histories. 18 How did Christianity and capitalism come together in America? Indeed Christianity and capital came together before more clearly toward the middle of the fifteenth century. But America propelled capital into capitalism. How come? Again the massive appropriation of land massive exploitation of labor and massive slave trade came together with a common goal (to produce the commodities of a global market from gold to tobacco and sugar) and a dramatic consequence (the expendability – dispensability – of human lives in the pursuit of commodity production and capital accumulation). Capital turned into capitalism when the radical changes in land appropriation labor exploitation and massive commodity produ tion were conceived in the rhetoric of modernity as an advancement of humanity (in the eighteenth century Adam Smith would be the first in theorizing political economy starting from the Atlantic commercial circuits). The consequences of the conversion of capital into capitalism were the devaluation of human lives and and the naturalization of human expendability. That is the beginning of a type of racism that is still well and alive today(as evidenced in the treatment of immigrants in Europe and the US as well as the expendability of people’s lives in Iraq). </source> [/INST] <claim>Colonization drove capitalism – the relative globalization of the slave trade and land appropriation ensure capitalisms success only challenging structures underlying capitalism solves</claim> <psg>Without that partnership the outcome of capitalism and the world in which we are living in today would have certainly been different History is an institution that legitimizes the telling of stories of happenings simultaneously silencing other stories as well as stories of the silence of histories But America propelled capital into capitalism the massive appropriation of land massive exploitation of labor and massive slave trade came together with a common goal and a dramatic consequence Capital turned into capitalism when the radical changes in land appropriation labor exploitation and massive commodity produ tion were conceived in the rhetoric of modernity as an advancement of humanit</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 communal is not grounded on the idea of the ‘common’ nor that of the ‘commune’ although the latter has been taken up in Bolivia of late – notably not by Aymara and Quechua intellectuals but by members of the criolla or mestiza population. The communal is something else. It derives from forms of social organisation that existed prior to the Incas and Aztecs and also from the Incas’ and Aztecs’ experiences of their 500-year relative survival first under Spanish colonial rule and later under independent nation states. To be done justice it must be understood not as a leftwing project (in the European sense) but as a de-colonial one. </source> [/INST] <claim>Our methodology is required – decolonization of education is key to achieving anti-capitalist goals in Latin America</claim> <psg>The communal is not grounded on the idea of the ‘common’ nor that of the ‘commune’ The communal derives from forms of social organisation that existed prior to the Incas and Aztecs and also from the Incas’ and Aztecs’ experiences of their 500-year relative survival To be done justice it must be understood not as a leftwing project but as a de-colonial one</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 idea of a communal system as an alternative to the (neo-)liberal system today which emerged from the memories and lived experiences of Andean communities has a global scope. This does not however mean that the ayllu system should be exported in a manner similar to other previous models (Christian liberal or Marxist). Rather it is an invitation to organise and re-inscribe communal systems all over the world – systems that have been erased and dismantled by the increasing expansion of the capitalist economy which the European left has been unable to halt. If ayllus and markas are the singular memory and organisation of communities in the Andes then it is the other memories of communal organisation around the globe which predate and survived the advent of capitalism which make possible the idea of a communal system today – one not mapped out in advance by any ideology or any simple return to the past. The Zapatista dictum of the need for ‘a world in which many worlds fit’ springs to mind as we try to imagine a planet of communal systems in a pluri-versal not uni-versal world order. </source> [/INST] <claim>Only perm can solve - Leftist struggles against capitalism fail – universalizing forms of governing inevitably shut down other thought processes the aff’s transition toward a pluri-versal modal is required</claim> <psg>This idea of a communal system as an alternative to the liberal system today has a global scope This does not mean that the system should be exported Rather it is an invitation to organise and re-inscribe communal systems all over the world systems that have been erased and dismantled by the increasing expansion of the capitalist economy which the European left has been unable to halt The Zapatista dictum of the need for ‘a world in which many worlds fit’ springs to mind as we try to imagine a planet of communal systems in a pluri-versal not uni-versal world order</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 logic of coloniality can be understood as working through four wide domains of human experience: (1) the economic: appro priation of land exploitation of labor and control of finance. (2) the political: control of authority. () the civic: control of gender and sexuality. (4) the epistemic and the subjective/personal: control of knowledge and subjectivity. The logic of coloniality has been in place from the conquest and colonization of Mexico and Peru until and beyond the war in Iraq despite superficial changes in the scale and agents of exploitation/control in the past five hundred years of history. Each domain is interwoven with the others since appropria tion of land or exploitation of labor also involves the control of finance of authority of gender and of knowledge and subjectivity. 8 The operation of the colonial matrix is invisible to distracted eyes and even when it surfaces it is explained through the rhetoric of modernity that the situation can be “corrected” with “development ” “democracy ” a “strong economy ” etc. What some will see as “lies” from the US presidential administration are not so much lies as part of a very well-codified “rhetoric of modernity ” promising salvation for everybody in order to divert attention from the increasingly oppressive consequences of the logic of coloniality. To implement the logic of coloniality requires the celebratory rhetoric of modernity as the case of Iraq has illustrated from day one. As capital and power concentrate in fewer and fewer hands and poverty increases all over the word the logic of coloniality becomes ever more oppressive and merciless. Since the sixteenth century the rhetoric of modernity has relied on the vocabulary of salvation which was accompanied by the massive appropriation of land in the New World and the massive exploitation of Indian and African slave labor justified by a belief in the dispensability of human life – the lives of the slaves. Thus while some Christians today for example beat the drum of “pro-life values ” they reproduce a rhetoric that diverts attention from the increasing “devaluation of human life” that the thousands dead in Iraq demonstrate. Thus it is not modernity that will overcome coloniality because it is precisely modernity that needs and produces coloniality. </source> [/INST] <claim>Eurocentrism ensures the alt is coopted – colonization was the original driving force of capitalism and a critique of capitalism that fails to address this is ineffective</claim> <psg>The logic of coloniality can be understood as working through the economic: appro priation of land the political: control of authority the epistemic and the subjective/personal: control of knowledge and subjectivity. Each domain is interwoven with the others since appropria tion of land or exploitation of labor also involves the control of finance of authority of gender and of knowledge and subjectivity. To implement the logic of coloniality requires the celebratory rhetoric of modernity the rhetoric of modernity has relied on the vocabulary of salvation which was accompanied by the massive appropriation of land in the New World and the massive exploitation of Indian and African slave labor it is not modernity that will overcome coloniality because it is precisely modernity that needs and produces coloniality</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> Contrary to recent news accounts we are closer to passing a meaningful immigration reform bill than at any point since John McCain and Ted Kennedy introduced their bill in 2005. Consider: • The Senate passed a bill with 68 votes the most any immigrant reform bill has received since this process began. The last time an immigration bill passed the Senate it was in 2006 and it received just 62 votes. • The House whose last major vote on immigration reform was in 2005 and called for the deportation of the 11 million unauthorized migrants in the U.S. has already passed five immigration and border related bills out of committee. Last week Speaker John Boehner said he believed the House needed to do something on immigration reform this Congress and next week Republicans are having a public hearing on the DREAM Act. While much has been written about the need Republicans have to support immigration reform to get back in the game with Latino voters I think an equally compelling reason why the House is already taking significant strides towards passing an immigration reform bill is the pressure they feel to meet the very high bar set by the Senate 'Gang of Eight' framework. Their framework will give the country a better legal immigration system one more based on bringing growth producing skilled labor. It will close some of the holes in our interior enforcement system build on the significant gains made in border security in recent years and make the border region even safer. It will make needed investments in 47 ports of entry with Mexico facilitating more trade and tourism creating more jobs on both sides of the border. It creates an arduous but achievable path to citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants already in the country. And remarkably it will grow the economy create jobs and lower the deficit by a $1 trillion over 20 years. In a time where Americans have so little faith in their government to meet the emerging challenges of our time the Gang of Eight framework is a bit of a political miracle: incredibly thoughtful public policy broad bi-partisan support a deep and diverse political coalition backing it. It just is very hard for the House Republicans to walk away from all that too. And they haven't. In the last few months the House Republicans have passed bills relating to border security interior enforcement and changes in the legal immigration system. They are talking about the DREAM Act and a 'path to legalization.' The Border Caucus is floating smart proposals to invest in our ports of entry something that could help bring border state Republicans along. Some House Republicans have even said they expect a bill with citizenship to eventually pass and be signed into law. The characterization of the House Republicans as standing in the way of immigration reform is only half right. They are as the Founders intended moving this issue through their chamber at their own pace. This is to be expected frankly. Unlike the Senate the House hasn't really debated the issue since 2005 and there are many new members particularly in the Republican Conference. There just isn't a lot of institutional knowledge about the issue. Institutional bluster perhaps but not a lot of knowledge or understanding. So they need time. Another reason the House Republicans need time to work through the issue is the House chamber's unique history with immigration reform. Just a few months after Senators McCain and Kennedy introduced their thoughtful bill in 2005 the House voted to arrest and deport the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. In 2006 when the Senate passed McCain-Kennedy the House refused to even consider it. The default position for many in the House GOP -- that the solution to the 11 million is for them to all leave the country -- was in the platform of the Republican Party in 2012 and carried by its nominee. While there have been immigration reformers like Bush and McCain in the GOP over the past decade much of the Republican Party has strongly held views that what the unauthorized immigrant population did by jumping the immigrant line was wrong and that as a matter of policy the nation cannot reward bad behavior. Getting those who hold this position to change is not and was never going to be easy. If dozens of Republicans are to sign on to a bill that has provisions they have said they will never support and deeply oppose that too will require time. As someone who has worked on immigration reform since the summer of 2005 I don't think the immigration bill is dead -- it is very much alive. You can see the outlines of an eventual deal. The House will likely accept much of the Senate enforcement framework dropping the expensive and reckless border surge but adding to the interior enforcement provisions. Dems might have to accept more W low skilled visas to get the House to go along with the Senate vision for the new skills-based legal immigration system. Adopting some of Senator Cornyn's savvy proposals on border infrastructure investment could help bring him back to the table and entice more border and growth oriented GOPers to sign on. This of course leaves us with the 11 million and legalization and citizenship. My own read of the situation is the House Leadership knows it must do something here that leaving the 11 million or even a large potion of the 11 million in limbo just won't fly. As we saw in the Senate process the GOP was willing to trade and deal on citizenship. With the House GOP talking about DREAMers Ag workers and legalization the elements of an eventual deal are on the on table. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported yesterday that the bi-partisan 'gang' in the House has worked out a path to citizenship adopting a new trigger process recasting the early stages of the path and making it longer. So it is possible to for House Republicans to craft a citizenship path that the president and the Dems can support if all the parties can sit down and work it all out. Reports of the death of immigration reform are premature. The Senate Bill may be dead in the House but immigration reform isn't. What the House comes up with will be different than the Senate but that's why we have conference committees. I don't think the differences between the two chambers are as great as many believe. the Senate bill provided an extraordinary framework to build from. and the House needs time to work through it in their own way. Of course it is possible that the House conservatives block any progress on immigration reform this year but I think their arguments will weaken over time not strengthen. Why? Simply they just aren't very good and the politics of recent years has made them jarringly obsolete. Being on the side of fixing the broken immigration system creating jobs and reducing the deficit is just better politics than once again doing nothing about a very challenge facing the country -- even if it means citizenship for the 11 million. Something will pass the House this year. Whether it is good and can become something signed by the president will depend to a great degree on how well our leaders work together to bring this tough process to conclusion. But a deal is out there to be made. I hope the tribes of Washington can seize this moment and give America a far better immigration system than we have today. </source> [/INST] <claim>There’s bipartisan support for a bill now – maintaining bipartisanship is key to passage</claim> <psg>we are closer to passing a meaningful immigration reform bill than at any point since J 2005 The Senate passed a bill with 68 votes The House has already passed five immigration and border related bills out of committee Boehner believed the House needed to do something Republicans are having a public hearing on the DREAM Act. the House is already taking significant strides towards passing an immigration reform bill by the Senate 'Gang of Eight' framework the Gang of Eight framework is a political miracle: incredibly thoughtful public policy broad bi-partisan support a deep and diverse political coalition backing it. It is very hard for House Republicans to walk away from all that the GOP was willing to trade and deal on citizenship. the bi-partisan 'gang' in the House has worked out a path to citizenship Reports of the death of immigration reform are prematur the Senate bill provided an extraordinary framework to build from. and the House needs time to work through it Something will pass Whether it is good and can become signed by the president will depend on how well our leaders work together to bring this tough process to conclusion. But a deal is out there to be made</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> Contrary to recent news accounts we are closer to passing a meaningful immigration reform bill than at any point since John McCain and Ted Kennedy introduced their bill in 2005. Consider: • The Senate passed a bill with 68 votes the most any immigrant reform bill has received since this process began. The last time an immigration bill passed the Senate it was in 2006 and it received just 62 votes. • The House whose last major vote on immigration reform was in 2005 and called for the deportation of the 11 million unauthorized migrants in the U.S. has already passed five immigration and border related bills out of committee. Last week Speaker John Boehner said he believed the House needed to do something on immigration reform this Congress and next week Republicans are having a public hearing on the DREAM Act. While much has been written about the need Republicans have to support immigration reform to get back in the game with Latino voters I think an equally compelling reason why the House is already taking significant strides towards passing an immigration reform bill is the pressure they feel to meet the very high bar set by the Senate 'Gang of Eight' framework. Their framework will give the country a better legal immigration system one more based on bringing growth producing skilled labor. It will close some of the holes in our interior enforcement system build on the significant gains made in border security in recent years and make the border region even safer. It will make needed investments in 47 ports of entry with Mexico facilitating more trade and tourism creating more jobs on both sides of the border. It creates an arduous but achievable path to citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants already in the country. And remarkably it will grow the economy create jobs and lower the deficit by a $1 trillion over 20 years. In a time where Americans have so little faith in their government to meet the emerging challenges of our time the Gang of Eight framework is a bit of a political miracle: incredibly thoughtful public policy broad bi-partisan support a deep and diverse political coalition backing it. It just is very hard for the House Republicans to walk away from all that too. </source> [/INST] <claim>CIR will pass now</claim> <psg>we are closer to passing a meaningful immigration reform bill than at any point since J 2005 The Senate passed a bill with 68 votes The House has already passed five immigration and border related bills out of committee Boehner believed the House needed to do something Republicans are having a public hearing on the DREAM Act. the House is already taking significant strides towards passing an immigration reform bill by the Senate 'Gang of Eight' framework the Gang of Eight framework is a political miracle: incredibly thoughtful public policy broad bi-partisan support a deep and diverse political coalition backing it. It is very hard for House Republicans to walk away from all that</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> Republican and Democratic leadership seem to agree on only one thing these days: An immigration reform bill that may or may not be comprehensive may or may not further beef up border security and may or may not open a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States must make it to President Obama's desk - and soon.¶ With the threat of 2014 and 2016 politics creeping onto the horizon and August recess just weeks away lawmakers from both parties and chambers hit the Sunday show circuit this weekend to stress the importance of overhauling the currently 'broken' U.S. immigration system. But with the comprehensive package that soared through the Senate with meaty bipartisan support effectively dead on arrival in the GOP-controlled House are both parties living in a pipe dream?¶ 'They will act. they have to ' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-Nev. said of the lower chamber during an appearance on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' 'This is something that the vast vast majority of Republicans Democrats and independents support and John Boehner should let the House vote. That's all he has to do. If the House voted it would pass overwhelmingly.' </source> [/INST] <claim>Will pass – bipart support</claim> <psg>Republican and Democratic leadership seem to agree on only one thing these days: An immigration reform bill With the threat of 2014 and 2016 politics creeping onto the horizon lawmakers from both parties and chambers hit the Sunday show circuit this weekend to stress the importance of overhauling the currently 'broken' U.S. immigration system They will act. they have to ' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-Nev. said of the lower chamber during an appearance on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' 'This is something that the vast vast majority of Republicans Democrats and independents support If the House voted it would pass overwhelmingly.'</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> When the U.S. Senate passed its immigration reform bill in June it tossed a hot potato to Republican House leaders. Ever since the 2012 election Republican elites have been buzzing about the Hispanic vote. Any missteps on immigration they fear may further squeeze a slim margin in national elections.¶ Romney’s 27 percent of Hispanic voters fell just short of John McCain’s already low 31 in 2008 and well short George W. Bush’s 40 in 2004. That failure didn’t cost the election outright but it played a key role.¶ Helpful advice comes from unlikely places some with conflicts of interest. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) predicted in June that “the national Republican leadership will tell John Boehner if you don't pass a bill then we are going to be a minority party for a generation.”¶ Most GOP elites agree with Schumer that the party must broaden its ethnic reach and some hope passing the Senate immigration bill will allow the party to quickly start pounding pilings for a bridge to Hispanic voters. But not everyone agrees. </source> [/INST] <claim>Will pass – GOP wants a bridge to Hispanic voters</claim> <psg>When the U.S. Senate passed its immigration reform bill in June it tossed a hot potato to Republican House leaders. Ever since the 2012 election Republican elites have been buzzing about the Hispanic vote. Any missteps on immigration they fear may further squeeze a slim margin in national elections.¶ Romney’s 27 percent of Hispanic voters fell just short of John McCain’s already low 31 in 2008 and well short George W. Bush’s 40 in 2004. That failure didn’t cost the election outright but it played a key role Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) predicted in June that “the national Republican leadership will tell John Boehner if you don't pass a bill then we are going to be a minority party for a generation.”¶ Most GOP elites agree with Schumer that the party must broaden its ethnic reach and some hope passing the Senate immigration bill will allow the party to quickly start pounding pilings for a bridge to Hispanic voters</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> ¶ Immigration reform has stalled in the House where it is expected to die a slow and painful death because of resistance from conservative Republicans.¶ ¶ This is not what the GOP establishment wants as evidenced by the Republican National Committee's 2012 autopsy report warning about the party's poor performance with Hispanics. It's not what Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and several other Republican senators want either after pushing through a bipartisan immigration overhaul. Many of the potential Republican presidential candidates for 2016 — including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) — have publicly backed some kind of path to citizenship.¶ ¶ Unlike senators who must make an appeal to moderates statewide Republicans in the House campaign in smaller often politically homogenous districts that remain suspicious of immigration reform. It hasn't helped that opinion-shapers in the conservative base i.e. talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh have rallied against it.¶ ¶ The nation as a whole however is moving the other way. A new Gallup poll shows that 48 percent of adults in America feel like the Democratic Party's stance on immigration reform is closer to their own compared to only 36 percent who identify with the GOP's immigration policies:¶ ¶ ¶ Even scarier for Republicans is that 60 percent of Hispanics say their views on immigration align with those of the Democratic Party. That is bad news for politicians in red states that have seen dramatic growth in their Latino populations from 2000 to 2011 including South Carolina (154 percent) Kentucky (132 percent) and Arkansas (123 percent). Democrats are eyeing solidly Republican Texas as a future blue state a sign of just how much the political landscape is changing thanks to shifting demographics.¶ ¶ Furthermore as long as immigration remains an issue the tougher it will be for a Republican to win the White House. </source> [/INST] <claim>Public pressure on GOP to pass immigration reform</claim> <psg>Immigration reform has stalled in the House This is not what the GOP establishment wants It's not what Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and several other Republican senators want either after pushing through a bipartisan immigration overhaul. Many of the potential Republican presidential candidates for 2016 — including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) — have publicly backed some kind of path to citizenship A new Gallup poll shows that 48 percent of adults in America feel like the Democratic Party's stance on immigration reform is closer to their own compared to only 36 percent who identify with the GOP's immigration policies:¶ ¶ ¶ Even scarier for Republicans is that 60 percent of Hispanics say their views on immigration align with those of the Democratic Party. That is bad news for politicians in red states that have seen dramatic growth in their Latino populations from 2000 to 2011 including South Carolina (154 percent) Kentucky (132 percent) and Arkansas (123 percent). Democrats are eyeing solidly Republican Texas as a future blue state a sign of just how much the political landscape is changing thanks to shifting demographics as long as immigration remains an issue the tougher it will be for a Republican to win the White House</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> WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Republican-controlled House of Representatives will bow to political pressure and pass the immigration bill approved by the Democratic-led Senate by the end of the year Democratic Senator Charles Schumer predicted on Sunday.¶ Schumer a member of the bipartisan Senate group that crafted the immigration measure said House Republicans who are now vowing they will not pass the Senate measure will ultimately be convinced by political concerns about the party’s future.¶ “I believe that by the end of this year the House will pass the Senate bill. I know that’s not what they think now. And they’ll say ‘Oh no that’s not what’s going to happen.’ But I think it will ” Schumer told the “Fox News Sunday” program.¶ Senior House Republicans rejected Schumer’s prediction. Republican Speaker John Boehner has said the House will write its own immigration bill rather than bringing up the Senate bill passed on Thursday which is supported by Democratic President Barack Obama.¶ Fourteen Senate Republicans joined Senate Democrats in backing a Senate bill that features a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States an approach vehemently opposed by many conservative House Republicans who view it as rewarding law-breakers.¶ Some Republican leaders worry that rejecting the Senate bill could further alienate Hispanics a fast-growing bloc of voters who overwhelmingly supported Obama’s re-election in 2012 and could handicap the party in future presidential elections.¶ Schumer said House Republicans eventually will allow a vote on the Senate bill to get the issue off their backs and ease the pressure from immigration reform supporters including religious civil rights and business groups. </source> [/INST] <claim>Schumer predicts house will pass the senate bill</claim> <psg>The Republican-controlled House of Representatives will bow to political pressure and pass the immigration bill approved by the Democratic-led Senate by the end of the year Democratic Senator Charles Schumer predicted Schumer a member of the bipartisan Senate group that crafted the immigration measure said House Republicans who are now vowing they will not pass the Senate measure will ultimately be convinced by political concerns about the party’s future. “I believe that by the end of this year the House will pass the Senate bill. I know that’s not what they think now. And they’ll say ‘Oh no that’s not what’s going to happen.’ But I think it will ” Schumer told the “Fox News Sunday” program Some Republican leaders worry that rejecting the Senate bill could further alienate Hispanics a fast-growing bloc of voters who overwhelmingly supported Obama’s re-election in 2012 and could handicap the party in future presidential elections.¶ Schumer said House Republicans eventually will allow a vote on the Senate bill to get the issue off their backs and ease the pressure from immigration reform supporters including religious civil rights and business groups.</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> Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on Sunday urged Republicans in the House to move on immigration reform legislation.¶ Even though McConnell voted against the Senate immigration reform bill he hopes the House will pass something that can be melded with the Senate proposal in conference negotiations.¶ “I don't think anybody's satisfied with the status quo on immigration ” he said in an NBC “Meet the Press” interview. “And I hope the House will be able to move forward on something and we can get this into conference and get an outcome that will be satisfactory for the American people.” </source> [/INST] <claim>McConnell supports house passage</claim> <psg>Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell urged Republicans in the House to move on immigration reform legislation.¶ Even though McConnell voted against the Senate immigration reform bill he hopes the House will pass something that can be melded with the Senate proposal in conference negotiations. I don't think anybody's satisfied with the status quo on immigration ” he said in an NBC “Meet the Press” interview. “And I hope the House will be able to move forward on something and we can get this into conference and get an outcome that will be satisfactory for the American people.”</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> And so a large majority 59 percent favor acting on the Senate bill as is or with tougher border security provisions. Only 13 percent favor passing it without citizenship — the preferred option of many Republican officials — and only a total of 33 percent prefer passing reform without citizenship or doing nothing at all. But…but…but…House Republicans in safe districts only answer to their own voters and GOP voters don’t want any action right? Wrong. According to this poll here is how Republican voters break down on this range of options: Pass the Senate bill as is: 18 Toughen border security provisions: 42 Eliminate citizenship for illegal immigrants: 16 Not pass any immigration legislation: 16 And so a majority of Republicans a total of 60 percent favors passing the Senate bill — with citizenship in it — when you include the whopping 42 percent of them who support this as long as you toughen border security provisions. By contrast only 32 percent of them favor passing the Senate bill without citizenship or doing nothing at all. Here’s why this is important. Polls such as today’s WaPo/ABC survey that offer just a straight choice — do you favor a path to citizenship or don’t you — find majorities of Republicans oppose citizenship. But offer them the true range of options on the table and you find they want Congress to act on reform including a path to citizenship as long as border enforcement is beefed up. That’s what the bipartisan House “gang of seven” bill is expected to do but we’re already being told House Republicans won’t accept this because their voters will never accept it. It’s been widely accepted at face value that House Republicans can’t support comprehensive immigration reform because they will face a massive backlash from their voters and even will face primaries and all but certain political destruction. (Buzzfeed’s John Stanton has been one of the few to challenge this conventional wisdom.) But is it even true? The above poll suggests a solid majority of Republicans want action on reform even including citizenship under certain conditions. and that only a minority of Republicans support reform without citizenship or no action at all. </source> [/INST] <claim>Majority of House Republicans want passage</claim> <psg>a majority of Republicans favors passing the Senate bill they want Congress to act on reform ’s been widely accepted at face value that House Republicans can’t support comprehensive immigration reform But is it true? The poll suggests a solid majority of Republicans want action on reform</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> Press reports focus on the (very real) civil war within the GOP the latest rants from the die-hards and the crazies and the various reasons led chiefly by congressional redistricting and Tea Party pressure that immigration reform will go down in flames. But considerably less attention is being paid to a handful of key conservatives members of both the old and new guards in the House whose recent moves on immigration are giving high-level staffers lobbyists and advocates reason to believe that the chances for reform are still alive in this Congress. Driven by a combination of personal politics religious beliefs professional ambitions and old-fashioned self-interest these five Republicans are the dominoes at the front of the line for the House GOP according to immigration watchers. As go these five so goes the caucus. Call them “the Deciders.” A major test for the Deciders will be the month of August when members traditionally head home to their districts and get an earful from constituents about whatever is pending before Congress. To avoid a repeat of the 2009 pitchfork-and-torches sessions that nearly torpedoed health-care reform House members in the “Gang of Seven” will introduce their comprehensive immigration bill in September well after House Republicans have offered smaller measures and the heat of the recess has come and gone. </source> [/INST] <claim>August doesn’t matter – bipartisan efforts will bring the vote in September</claim> <psg>key conservatives members of both the old and new guards in the House whose recent moves on immigration are giving high-level staffers lobbyists and advocates reason to believe that the chances for reform are still alive in this Congress Driven by a combination of personal politics religious beliefs professional ambitions and old-fashioned self-interest these Republicans are the dominoes at the front of the line A major test will be the month of August when members traditionally head home To avoid a repeat of the 2009 pitchfork-and-torches sessions that nearly torpedoed health-care House members will introduce their comprehensive immigration bill in September</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 to pick on Ezra or anything but this attitude betrays a surprisingly common misconception about political issues in general. The fact is that political dogs never bark until an issue becomes an active one. Opposition to Social Security privatization was pretty mild until 2005 when George Bush turned it into an active issue. Opposition to healthcare reform was mild until 2009 when Barack Obama turned it into an active issue. Etc. I only bring this up because we often take a look at polls and think they tell us what the public thinks about something. But for the most part they don't.1 That is they don't until the issue in question is squarely on the table and both sides have spent a couple of months filling the airwaves with their best agitprop. Polling data about gays in the military for example hasn't changed a lot over the past year or two but once Congress takes up the issue in earnest and the Focus on the Family newsletters go out the push polling starts Rush Limbaugh picks it up and Fox News creates an incendiary graphic to go with its saturation coverage — well that's when the polling will tell you something. And it will probably tell you something different from what it tells you now. Immigration was bubbling along as sort of a background issue during the Bush administration too until 2007 when he tried to move an actual bill. Then all hell broke loose. The same thing will happen this time and without even a John McCain to act as a conservative point man for a moderate solution. The political environment is worse now than it was in 2007 and I'll be very surprised if it's possible to make any serious progress on immigration reform. 'Love 'em or hate 'em ' says Ezra illegal immigrants 'aren't at the forefront of people's minds.' Maybe not. But they will be soon. </source> [/INST] <claim>Be skeptical of their link uniqueness arguments – issues don’t cost PC til the bill is at the finish line</claim> <psg>political dogs never bark until an issue becomes an active one Opposition to healthcare reform was mild until 2009 when Obama turned it into an active issue we often take a look at polls and think they tell us what the public thinks about something. But for the most part they don't until the issue in question is squarely on the table and both sides have spent a couple of months filling the airwaves with their best agitprop once Congress takes up the issue in earnest push polling starts saturation coverage that's when the polling will tell you somethin Immigration was a background issue until an actual bill. Then all hell broke loose. The same thing will happen this time</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 good idea but one that I doubt Republican hawks would be willing to contemplate. Pushing for normalized relations with Cuba would be a much-needed demonstration that Republican foreign policy thinking isn’t completely inflexible and it would show that Republicans don’t want to hang on to failed policies indefinitely. It would be a relatively painless change to make politically and it might even work to the GOP’s benefit in a Cuban-American community that is no longer as reliably supportive of the party as it once was. The main reason that it isn’t likely to happen is that pro-embargo anti-engagement attitudes are so entrenched among most national Republican leaders that any significant change on Cuba policy in favor of normalized relations would be seen as a betrayal of principle. Hawks and democratists would both throw a fit and accuse anyone who proposed this as a friend of Castro. This is completely the wrong way to look at it but it is unfortunately the way that party leaders steeped in moralizing rhetoric tend to view these things. </source> [/INST] <claim>Changing Cuban policies is unpopular with Republicans and Democrats</claim> <psg>Pushing for normalized relations with Cuba would be a much-needed demonstration that Republican foreign policy thinking isn’t completely inflexible main reason that it isn’t likely to happen is that pro-embargo anti-engagement attitudes are so entrenched among most national Republican leaders that any significant change on Cuba policy in favor of normalized relations would be seen as a betrayal of principle. Hawks and democratists would both throw a fit and accuse anyone who proposed this as a friend of Castro.</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> Over the last decade we have seen many attempts to change U.S. Cuba policy beginning with lifting the travel ban. All have failed. Most recently we have seen the efforts to remove Cuba from the Terror List a designation that Cuba does not deserve and only serves to keep costs higher between the two countries also fail. Conversely we have seen the hand of the pro-embargo hardliners grow bigger and stronger. Legislation to expand Cuba travel is consistently blocked or thwarted in Congress. Funding for clandestine “Democracy” programs like the ones that got Alan Gross into a Cuban prison still continue to be funded. The pro-embargo voting bloc raises money and elected six Members of Congress to be their vanguards on the floors of Congress. Their capacity to even reach into the White House the Executive Branch and establish themselves in gateway leadership positions in the Congress all speak to a well concerted political effort. Government officials and policy makers have to tow the hard line through the veiled and actual threats of holding up Presidential appointments or congressional funding. Intelligence and reason have taken a back slide to raw political power. Meet the consequences of distorted politics. </source> [/INST] <claim>No risk of a link turn – past efforts prove – the anti-regime lobby has massive political sway</claim> <psg>Over the last decade we have seen many attempts to change U.S. Cuba policy All have failed we have seen the hand of the pro-embargo hardliners grow bigger and stronger Legislation to expand Cuba travel is consistently blocked or thwarted in Congress. The pro-embargo voting bloc raises money and elected six Members of Congress to be their vanguards on the floors of Congress. Their capacity to reach into the White House and establish themselves in gateway leadership positions in the Congress all speak to a well concerted political effort. Government officials and policy makers have to tow the hard line through the veiled and actual threats of holding up congressional funding. Intelligence and reason have taken a back slide to raw political power</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 these adjustments — which could also include travel for all Americans and looser rules for ships engaged in trade with Cuba according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Cuba Study Group — would probably mean a fierce political fight. The handful of Cuban-Americans in Congress for whom the embargo is sacred oppose looser rules.¶ When asked about Cuban entrepreneurs who are seeking more American support Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen the Florida Republican who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee proposed an even tighter embargo.¶ “The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and in fact should be strengthened and not be altered ” she wrote in an e-mail. “Responsible nations must not buy into the facade the dictatorship is trying to create by announcing ‘reforms’ while in reality it’s tightening its grip on its people.” </source> [/INST] <claim>Republicans deeply oppose easing the embargo</claim> <psg>Even these adjustments would probably mean a fierce political fight. The handful of Cuban-Americans in Congress for whom the embargo is sacred oppose looser rules Florida Republican who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee proposed an even tighter embargo.¶ “The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and in fact should be strengthened and not be altered ” she wrote in an e-mail.</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> Florida Sen. Marco Rubio gave a passionate slightly cheesy speech on Thursday to convince conservatives that immigration reform will actually do things they want just a few hours before the Senate voted to pass the bill 68 to 32. Rubio has been trying to win over conservative hearts and minds for months frequently going on talk radio shows and Fox News to sell his legislation (Radio host Mark Levin says Rubio even texted him in the middle of a show to say he was wrong about a detail of the bill). But he hasn't won over everyone. House Speaker John Boehner had announced just a few hours earlier that he would make it pretty difficult for immigration reform to pass — insisting that the bill would not get a vote unless a majority of House Republicans would vote for it. (Multiple Republicans have threatened to oust him if he did otherwise.) Some had speculated that after the House and Senate came up with a compromise in conference committee Boehner would let that pass with Democratic votes. But Boehner nixed that too.¶ The Senate will probably get more than 60 votes to pass immigration. (Update 4:25 p.m.: It passed 68 to 32.) It's a big majority but not big enough for some House Republicans. 'We have a minority of the minority in the Senate voting for this bill ' Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole told The New York Times's Jonathan Weisman this week. 'That's not going to put a lot of pressure on the majority of the majority in the House.' Weisman reports that two top GOP aides said Boehner 'has no intention of angering conservative voters and jeopardizing the House Republican majority in 2014 in the interest of courting Hispanic voters on behalf of a 2016 Republican presidential nominee who does not yet exist.' And maybe the theoretical 2016 candidate is in trouble too! Sarah Palin suggested Rubio should face a primary challenger for supporting immigration reform in an interview with Breitbart News. 'We have long memories and there will be consequences for those who break campaign promises and vote for this amnesty bill ' she said.¶ Rubio says he's bothered by all the conservative criticism. 'To hear the worry anxiety and growing anger in the voices of so many people who helped me get elected to the Senate who I agree with on virtually every other issue has been a real trial for me ' he said Wednesday. Over the last few months Rubio's fought back against the mainstream conservative complaints: that his bill would cost too much that it would not secure the border. But his speech on Thursday subtly took on one of the uglier attacks on immigration: that Latino immigrants are too culturally different so we want fewer of them. Earlier this month for example Iowa Rep. Steve King warned that immigration advocates 'are salivating over putting their imprimatur on history and changing the character and the culture and the direction of the civilization of America.' Rush Limbaugh warned earlier this year that unlike immigrants 100 years ago today's immigrants are 'not interested in this distinct American culture.' ¶ On Thursday Rubio again told the story of his Cuban immigrant parents stressing that his dad was a hard worker. 'My father had someone phonetically write on a small piece of paper the words 'I am looking for work '' Rubio said. 'He memorized those words. They were literally some of the first words he learned to speak in English.' When immigrants come here Rubio said they start acting more like us. 'It reminds us that sometimes we focus so much on how immigrants could change America that we forget that America changes immigrants even more.' He concluded by reminding his colleagues how much he wanted reform to pass: 'And that's why I support this reform ' he said. 'Not just because I believe in immigrants but because I believe in America even more.' </source> [/INST] <claim>Rubio’s key to Immigration</claim> <psg>Florida Sen. Marco Rubio gave a passionate speech to convince conservatives that immigration reform will actually do things they want Rubio has been trying to win over conservative hearts and minds for months frequently going on talk radio shows and Fox News to sell his legislation Boehner had announced just a few hours earlier that he would make it pretty difficult for immigration reform to pass — insisting that the bill would not get a vote unless a majority of House Republicans would vote for it. Over the last few months Rubio's fought back against the mainstream conservative complaints: that his bill would cost too much that it would not secure 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> Rivera a rising Cuban American political star voiced the unbending attitudes of Miami's hard-line exile community - no normalization of relations until democratic elections are held and the political prisoners are freed. Wright who travels to the island frequently selling bull semen to his counterparts in Cuba's anemic agricultural sector called for an immediate end to the 47-year-old embargo. It's not working he said and it's hurting Florida.¶ The rhetoric of the debate organized by Tampa Bay Council of World Affairs & Commerce wasn't that surprising. What was surprising was the apparent unanimity of support for Wright's side. In the middle of a deep recession a roomful of business people a number of them with Cuban ties expressed little patience for a state legislator whose one-note foreign policy seems to be holding Florida's faltering economy hostage.¶ 'Prior to 1960 over 50 percent of the Port of Tampa's trade was with Cuba ' Wright said. 'Cuba has been cut off by our heavy hand for almost 50 years.'¶ Florida's phosphate fertilizer and livestock industries arepoised to capitalize on Cuba's need to regenerate its food production he pointed out. He also invited Rivera to help revive the Hav-a-Tampa cigar factory in Tampa which closed recently with a loss of 495 jobs. Why not let Tampa import Cuban tobacco he said.¶ Don't be fooled Rivera says. Doing business with Cuba won't help ordinary Cubans. 'There's only one business in Cuba It's called Castro Inc.'¶ Rivera has a point. Almost everyone in Cuba works for the state and salaries don't cover basic needs despite free health care and education. Private enterprise is only permitted in a tiny sector of the economy - roadside car tire repairs private taxis and a handful of small family-run restaurants and bed and breakfast lodgings - but it is strictly licensed and subject to all kind of restrictions as well as heavy taxes.¶ During the debate moderated by Jack Harris the morning talk show host with WFLA-AM Radio Rivera and Wright fielded questions from a panel of journalists including this reporter as well as the audience which directed all its questions at Rivera.¶ Why keep the embargo when most Cuban-Americans don't support it any more asked Alexis Muellner editor of the Tampa Bay Business Journal. He cited a recent opinion poll that found 41 percent of Cuban Americans do not support the embargo against only 40 percent who are in favor of keeping it. </source> [/INST] <claim>Embargo unpopular—public Florida and business leaders oppose</claim> <psg>Wright called for an immediate end to the 47-year-old embargo. What was surprising was the apparent unanimity of support for Wright's side. In the middle of a deep recession a roomful of business people a number of them with Cuban ties expressed little patience for holding Florida's faltering economy hostage.¶ Prior to 1960 over 50 percent of the Port of Tampa's trade was with Cuba ' Wright said. 'Cuba has been cut off by our heavy hand for almost 50 years.'¶ Why keep the embargo when most Cuban-Americans don't support it any more asked Alexis Muellner editor of the Tampa Bay Business Journal. He cited a recent opinion poll that found 41 percent of Cuban Americans do not support the embargo against only 40 percent who are in favor of keeping 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> Bringing an end to the decades-old US-Cuba embargo is no longer just a noble but hopeless idea. Conditions have changed to the point where restoring normal economic ties would make for smart policy - and savvy politics.¶ Even as Cubans recover from hurricanes Gustav and Ike their desire to end the embargo remains strong. In rejecting a modest initial offer of US aid on Sept. 4 Cuban President Raul Castro called instead for the whole enchilada of normalized economic relations. The United States is equally resolute in its nearly 50-year-old opposition to the socialist dictatorship. As simply put by the CATO Institute Washington's chief rationale for the embargo has been to 'compel a democratic transformation' in Cuba.¶ Yet common ground exists. In broad terms both sides want national security and economic opportunity. Now is the time to pursue those shared interests. Mutually beneficial opportunities in three areas - agricultural trade energy development and immigration - could provide the foundation for a postembargo relationship.¶ For years US farmers have lobbied Congress - only somewhat successfully - to open Cuban markets which are lucrative and feature low transportation costs. Both sides could realize benefits from greater liberalization: relaxed payment options for cash-strapped Cuba and the end of licenses and quotas for US farmers. Despite the embargo the US is Cuba's largest supplier of food and its sixth-largest trading partner.¶ Secondly direct US engagement could allow two of the nation's largest revenue generators the Cuban nickel and sugar industries to expand into more capital-intensive energy research through university and private-sector partnerships. </source> [/INST] <claim>Cuban embargo unpopular—farm lobby and private interests</claim> <psg>Conditions have changed to the point where restoring normal economic ties would make for savvy politics common ground exists. In broad terms both sides want national security and economic opportunity. Now is the time to pursue those shared interests. US farmers have lobbied Congress to open Cuban markets which are lucrative and feature low transportation costs Secondly direct US engagement could allow two of the nation's largest revenue generators the Cuban nickel and sugar industries to expand into more capital-intensive energy research through university and private-sector partnerships.</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> Others argue against rewarding Havana unless it releases Gross.¶ 'I have long believed it's in our interest to see an improvement in relations with Cuba ' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen a Democrat from Gross's home state of Maryland who traveled with a congressional delegation to Havana last month. But 'the first step needs to be resolving Alan Gross's situation.'¶ Voices calling for a change in the policy are growing louder however.¶ Last month The Boston Globe cited administration sources saying high-level diplomats determined Cuba should be dropped from the list. That prompted State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to say there were 'no current plans' to do so though she did not explicitly rule out the possibility.¶ Last week a Los Angeles Times editorial called for Cuba's removal from the list and other newspapers have voiced similar opinions. The Cuba Study Group a Washington-based exile organization that advocates engagement to promote democratic change issued a white paper in February calling for an 'apolitical' reexamination of the terror designation.¶ While Kerry can review the designation even after the State Department's report comes out Cuba's continued inclusion on the list in April would almost certainly rule out its chances of removal in 2013.¶ A U.S. official involved in deliberations told The Associated Press that Kerry will ultimately decide and nobody under him is in a position to predict what will happen. 'It's very much up in the air ' he said.¶ But another administration official said that lifting the terror designation will be a hard sell while Gross remains imprisoned.¶ 'It's very unlikely ' the second official said. 'There is no consensus. And if you are on (the list) you stay on as long as there is no consensus on taking you off.'¶ The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.¶ Ostensibly Cuba has been designated a terror sponsor because it harbors members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebel group the Basque militant organization ETA and a handful of U.S. fugitives many of whom have lived here since the 1970s. </source> [/INST] <claim>No support for removing Cuba—no momentum and Alan Gross</claim> <psg>Others argue against rewarding Havana unless it releases Gross.¶ the first step needs to be resolving Alan Gross's situation.'¶ But another administration official said that lifting the terror designation will be a hard sell while Gross remains imprisoned.¶ 'It's very unlikely ' the second official said. 'There is no consensus. And if you are on (the list) you stay on as long as there is no consensus on taking you off.'¶ Ostensibly Cuba has been designated a terror sponsor because it harbors members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebel group the Basque militant organization ETA and a handful of U.S. fugitives many of whom have lived here since the 1970s.</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 face of mounting calls to remove Cuba from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FLA) defended Foggy Bottom's recent decision to keep Cuba on the list in a statement to The Cable.¶ 'The Castro regime sponsors terrorism abroad and against their own people and removing a country from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism requires evidence of reform ' Rubio said. 'We have not seen such evidence in Cuba.'¶ In its annual Country Reports on Terrorism released last week the State Department acknowledged that some conditions on the island were improving but maintained three reasons for keeping Cuba on the list: Providing a safe haven for some two dozen members of Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) a Spanish rebel group charged with terrorist activity. providing aid to Colombia's rebel group the FARC 'in past years' -- Cuba no longer supports the group today. and providing harbor to 'fugitives wanted in the United States.'¶ 'It remains clear that Cuba is the same totalitarian state today that it has been for decades ' Rubio told The Cable. 'This totalitarian state continues to have close ties to terrorist organizations.' </source> [/INST] <claim>Rubio would oppose removal</claim> <psg>Rubio defended Foggy Bottom's recent decision to keep Cuba on the list 'The Castro regime sponsors terrorism abroad and against their own people and removing a country from the list of nations that sponsor terrorism requires evidence of reform ' Rubio said. 'We have not seen such evidence in Cuba.'¶ It remains clear that Cuba is the same totalitarian state today that it has been for decades ' Rubio told The Cable. 'This totalitarian state continues to have close ties to terrorist organizations.'</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> Last week Mr. Obama returned to capitals in Latin America with a vastly different message. Relationships with countries racked by drug violence and organized crime should focus more on economic development and less on the endless battles against drug traffickers and organized crime capos that have left few clear victors. The countries Mexico in particular need to set their own course on security with the United States playing more of a backing role. That approach runs the risk of being seen as kowtowing to governments more concerned about their public image than the underlying problems tarnishing it. Mexico which is eager to play up its economic growth has mounted an aggressive effort to play down its crime problems going as far as to encourage the news media to avoid certain slang words in reports. “The problem will not just go away ” said Michael Shifter president of the Inter-American Dialogue. “It needs to be tackled head-on with a comprehensive strategy that includes but goes beyond stimulating economic growth and alleviating poverty. “Obama becomes vulnerable to the charge of downplaying the region’s overriding issue and the chief obstacle to economic progress ” he added. “It is fine to change the narrative from security to economics as long as the reality on the ground reflects and fits with the new story line.” Administration officials insist that Mr. Obama remains cleareyed about the security challenges but the new emphasis corresponds with a change in focus by the Mexican government. The new Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto took office in December vowing to reduce the violence that exploded under the militarized approach to the drug war adopted by his predecessor Felipe Calderón. That effort left about 60 000 Mexicans dead and appears not to have significantly damaged the drug-trafficking industry. In addition to a focus on reducing violence which some critics have interpreted as taking a softer line on the drug gangs Mr. Peña Nieto has also moved to reduce American involvement in law enforcement south of the border. With friction and mistrust between American and Mexican law enforcement agencies growing Mr. Obama suggested that the United States would no longer seek to dominate the security agenda. “It is obviously up to the Mexican people to determine their security structures and how it engages with other nations including the United States ” he said standing next to Mr. Peña Nieto on Thursday in Mexico City. “But the main point I made to the president is that we support the Mexican government’s focus on reducing violence and we look forward to continuing our good cooperation in any way that the Mexican government deems appropriate.” In some ways conceding leadership of the drug fight to Mexico hews to a guiding principle of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy in which American supremacy is played down at least publicly in favor of a multilateral approach. But that philosophy could collide with the concerns of lawmakers in Washington who have expressed frustration with what they see as a lack of clarity in Mexico’s security plans. And security analysts say the entrenched corruption in Mexican law enforcement has long clouded the partnership with their American counterparts. Putting Mexico in the driver’s seat on security marks a shift in a balance of power that has always tipped to the United States and analysts said will carry political risk as Congress negotiates an immigration bill that is expected to include provisions for tighter border security. “If there is a perception in the U.S. Congress that security cooperation is weakening that could play into the hands of those who oppose immigration reform ” said Vanda Felbab-Brown a counternarcotics expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “Realistically the border is as tight as could be and there have been few spillovers of the violence from Mexico into the U.S. ” she added but perceptions count in Washington “and can be easily distorted.” “Drugs today are not very important to the U.S. public over all ” she added “but they are important to committed drug warriors who are politically powerful.” Representative Michael T. McCaul a Texas Republican who is chairman of the Homeland Security Committee has warned against the danger of drug cartels forming alliances with terrorist groups. “While these threats exist you would be surprised to find that the administration thinks its work here is done ” he wrote in an opinion article for Roll Call last month pressing for more border controls in the bill. The Obama administration has said any evidence of such cooperation is very thin but even without terrorist connections drug gangs pose threats to peace and security. Human rights advocates said they feared the United States would ease pressure on Mexico to investigate disappearances and other abuses at the hands of the police and military who have received substantial American support. The shift in approach “suggests that the Obama administration either doesn’t object to these abusive practices or is only willing to raise such concerns when it’s politically convenient ” said José Miguel Vivanco director of Human Rights Watch’s Americas division. Still administration officials have said there may have been an overemphasis on the bellicose language and high-profile hunts for cartel leaders while the real problem of lawlessness worsens. American antidrug aid is shifting more toward training police and shoring up judicial systems that have allowed criminals to kill with impunity in Mexico and Central America. United States officials said Mr. Obama remains well aware of the region’s problems with security even as he is determined that they not overshadow the economic opportunities. It is clear Mr. Obama whatever his words four years ago now believes there has been too much security talk. In a speech to Mexican students on Friday Mr. Obama urged people in the two countries to look beyond a one-dimensional focus on what he called real security concerns saying it is “time for us to put the old mind-sets aside.” And he repeated the theme later in the day in Costa Rica lamenting that when it comes to the United States and Central America “so much of the focus ends up being on security.” “We also have to recognize that problems like narco-trafficking arise in part when a country is vulnerable because of poverty because of institutions that are not working for the people because young people don’t see a brighter future ahead ” Mr. Obama said in a news conference with Laura Chinchilla the president of Costa Rica. </source> [/INST] <claim>Prioritizing economic ties with Mexico over drugs and security derails immigration reform – key players hate it</claim> <psg>United States backing runs the risk of being seen as kowtowing to governments more concerned about their public image than the underlying problems tarnishing it. Mexico which is eager to play up its economic growth has mounted an aggressive effort said president of the Inter-American Dialogue Obama becomes vulnerable to the charge of downplaying the region’s overriding issue and the chief obstacle to economic progress conceding leadership of the drug fight to Mexico could collide with the concerns of lawmakers in Washington who have expressed frustration with lack of clarity in Mexico’s security plans Putting Mexico in the driver’s seat on security carry political risk as Congress negotiates an immigration bill that is expected to include provisions for tighter border security If there is a perception in the U.S. Congress that security cooperation is weakening that could play into the hands of those who oppose immigration reform perceptions count in Washington “and can be easily distorted Drugs are important to committed drug warriors who are politically powerful.”</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 State Department on Thursday declared itself “concerned” with House Republicans' “devastating” 26 percent cut to foreign aid.¶ The Foreign Operations subcommittee on Appropriations unveiled a $34.1 billion spending bill that includes $17.3 billion in foreign aid spending — a $5.8 billion cut — and eliminates funding for some United Nations agencies and ties Egypt aid to democratic reforms. The panel will mark up the bill Friday morning.¶ “Our concern is that these proposed cuts which we would consider would be devastating if put into effect would hurt our ability to stand up for American interests and values around the world ” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said. “The U.S. can't lead if we retreat in this way.”¶ Harf highlighted specific measures as particularly concerning such as a 41 percent cut to economic and development assistance.¶ “This would dramatically reduce our assistance to countries like Afghanistan Pakistan Mexico Colombia South Sudan Somalia and Burma ” she said. “It would also force us to scale back the Feed the Future program setting back progress to reduce poverty in Africa by improving agricultural productivity.”¶ </source> [/INST] <claim>Republicans want to scale back engagement with Mexico</claim> <psg>¶ The State Department on Thursday declared itself “concerned” with House Republicans' “devastating” 26 percent cut to foreign aid.¶ The Foreign Operations subcommittee on Appropriations unveiled a $34.1 billion spending bill that includes $17.3 billion in foreign aid spending — a $5.8 billion cut — and eliminates funding for some United Nations agencies and ties Egypt aid to democratic reforms Harf highlighted specific measures as particularly concerning such as a 41 percent cut to economic and development assistance.¶ “This would dramatically reduce our assistance to countries like 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> A lack of resources has made the legal ports of entry a weak link in the border yet the Senate's immigration bill focuses almost entirely on the desert in between.¶ The bill now facing a tough battle in the House would nearly double the number of Border Patrol agents. But it would barely add any field officers who are responsible for keeping drugs and terrorists from slipping through and getting travelers and trade quickly across the border.¶ Initial talks about changes in immigration law focused on beefing up the legal entry points. But an amendment designed to win more Republican support changed that.¶ U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva an Arizona Democrat said the decision to focus on the desert between the ports stems from ignorance about the border region.¶ 'For the people who rant the most their idea of a border visit is to go out to a fence take a photograph make a statement about security and go back to parts of the country that have no understanding of what the borderlands are ' he said.¶ The Congressional Border Caucus that Grijalva co-chairs will push for a parallel proposal in the House to fund entry ports through which 350 million people and $2.3 trillion in trade crossed last year. That will help secure the border while creating jobs and stimulating the economy he said.¶ Agencies underfunded¶ The Border Patrol as well as Customs and Border Protection which is also known as the Office of Field Operations were chronically underfunded and understaffed from the early '70s through the formation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 said Doris Meissner senior fellow with the Migration Policy Institute and former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service - now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.¶ After the 9/11 terrorist attacks and failures to pass comprehensive immigration reform the nation's attention turned mostly to the Border Patrol.¶ Over the years the growth of Border Patrol agents has outpaced that of customs officers.¶ In Arizona there's fewer than one customs officer for every five agents.¶ Still Art Del Cueto president of the local Border Patrol union says agents are spread thin because many assist other agencies including customs officers with southbound inspections.¶ On a given day about 40 agents can assist officers at the ports in Arizona CBP officials said.¶ 'It's clear the Border Patrol has done a really good job shutting not all but large areas of the border between the ports of entry ' said Erik Lee executive director of the North American Research Partnership and co-author of the report 'The State of the Border.' 'The big needs are at the ports of entry.'¶ </source> [/INST] <claim>Plan and the immigration reform bill can’t coexist – past debates prove</claim> <psg>immigration bill focuses entirely on the desert The bill Initial talks about changes in immigration law focused legal entry points. But an amendment designed to win more Republican support changed that.¶ Democrat focus on the desert between the ports</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> Instead in Washington we hear calls for more border patrols drones and fences all in the name of border security yet the border Mayors are calling for very different things. They want more tourist buses moving across the border and more ports of entry with more custom agents so that movement happens easily. They want the borderlands in Arizona and Sonora Mexico to be united for the purposes of economic growth and development. They want the stop the rhetoric of fear that keeps Americans from venturing across the border and Mexicans wanting to stay home. So instead of drones how about more tour buses full of birders? Once those images start showing up on national TV the border might begin to loose its reputation as a scary violent place. But better yet come on down and see for yourself and while you are at it be sure to try some Bacanora from Sonora. It will change your mind about Tequila forever. But be sure to cross at Naco since it has the shortest lines!¶ </source> [/INST] <claim>Congress only cares about border securitization – opposed to more ports</claim> <psg>in Washington we hear calls for more border patrols drones and fences all in the name of border securit border Mayors are calling for very different things They want more ports of entry</psg></s>