CONDITIONALITY IS NOT TOPICAL

T NOT INCREASE ENGAGEMENT

A. Interpretation -- the plan itself must increase ties between the US and China
1. Increase is to make greater
Random House 13 Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary,
Random House, Inc. 2013. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/increase
increase
[v. in-krees; n. in-krees] Show IPA verb, increased, increasing, noun
verb (used with object)
to make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment; add to: to increase taxes.
verb (used without object)
2. to become greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality: Sales of automobiles increased last year.
3. to multiply by propagation.
4. to wax, as the moon.

2. Engagement is unconditional ties

Smith 5 Karen E. Smith (2005) Engagement and conditionality: incompatible or mutually
reinforcing? In: Youngs, Richard, Emerson, Michael, Smith, Karen E. and Whitman, Richard, (eds.) New
Terms of Engagement. Foreign Policy Centre, London, UK, pp. 23-29. ISBN 9781903558546
http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:83RqE0TzFMJ:scholar.google.com/
+engagement+positive+incentives+bilateral&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14
First, a few definitions. Engagement is

a foreign policy strategy of building close ties with the government and/or civil
another state. The intention of this strategy is to undermine illiberal political and economic practices, and socialise
government and other domestic actors into more liberal ways. Most cases of engagement entail primarily building economic
links, and encouraging trade and investment in particular. Some observers have variously labeled this strategy one of interdependence, or of oxygen: economic
activity leads to positive political consequences.19Conditionality, in contrast, is the linking, by a state or international
organisation, of perceived benefits to another state(such as aid or trade concessions) to the
fulfilment of economic and/or political conditions. Positive conditionality entails promising benefits to a state if it fulfils the
society and/or business community of

conditions; negative conditionality involves reducing, suspending, or terminating those benefits if the state violates the conditions (in other words, applying
sanctions, or a strategy of asphyxiation).20 To put it simply, engagement

implies ties, but with no strings attached;

conditionality attaches the strings. In another way of looking at it, engagement is more of a bottom-up strategy to induce change in another
country, conditionality more of a top-down strategy

B. Plan violates it is not unconditional; it does not itself increase engagement ,

but depends on outside events

C. The affirmative interpretation is bad for debate

Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash, but the affirmative
interpretation is too big. There are an infinite number of conditions that could be
set. Also, the plan doesnt make engagement occur; It relies on effects for
engagement to occur and all sorts of things affect relations.
D. T is a voter for pedagogical reasons its the only way we can learn to
rigorously test ideas and respond to rigorous testing

EXTENTION DEBATABILITY
PROBLEMS WITH CONDITIONALITY
Conditional engagement is indefinite the affirmative becomes a moving target
Jenkins 8 Simon Jenkins July 16, 2008 The Guardian - Final Edition Comment & Debate: The
withdrawal dynamic is shifting Iraq's political plates: The surge is at best a crime-cutting exercise. It is the
promise of Obama and disengagement that really concentrates minds lexis
Against this strategy stands the slow-withdrawal group. They see the surge remaining in place, notionally conditional on pressing Maliki to
conciliate the Kurds and Sunnis. Such "conditional engagement" means a continued American presence to "shockabsorb" change, and a continued splurge of aid. Above all, the gains of the surge must not be put at risk by precipitate withdrawal.
In reality this is a static strategy that denies the dynamic incentive of unconditional withdrawal. Ardent advocates admit it has not worked so far,
and its bluff can always be called by those crying "After us, the deluge", including the Babel of concerns with a financial interest in a US
presence. The evidence of the past two years is that Maliki and his colleagues, awash with corruption, won't negotiate the necessary alliances
until they know the occupation is emphatically ending. Conditional

engagement means indefinite engagement.

Conditional engagement is intentionally indeterminate the affirmative can claim

any kind of result, even worse relations
Hadar 96 Leon Hadar, BT's Washington correspondent May 30, 1996 Business Times
(Singapore)
Why conditional engagement won't work

lexis

A group of former US officials, business executives and policy analysts who prepared the study (Weaving The
Net: Conditional Engagement With China. Edited by James Shinn. Council on Foreign Relations; 284 pp; $ 19:95), are proposing an
alternative. It is a "moderate, rules-based, essentially empirical strategy" for dealing with China that is termed
"conditional engagement" (CE).
CE is a "hedging strategy" that assumes, as Jonathan Pollack of RAND, puts it, "neither a Kantian world of perpetual peace, nor a
hegemonic China, nor an endlessly shifting balance of power". Instead, CE rests on uncertainty about the ultimate
configuration of power in the region and predicts neither a benign nor a malign outcome to the
Sino-American encounter.
Like "engagement", CE hopes for the best, but it does not rest exclusively on the expectation that economic
interdependence and diplomatic engagement with China can keep competitive instincts between
Beijing and Washington in check. And, not unlike "containment", it prepares for the worst, but does not base its policy solely on a vision of
open-ended suspicion and unregulated competition between the US and China.

Since CE assumes that a variety of outcomes are possible, it "can only offer signposts along an
indeterminate path", says Mr Pollack. But the policy can provide clear incentives in the form of carrots and sticks for China to engage in
collaborative long-term relations with the US. Hence CE adopts the two main assumptions of Mr Clinton's "engagement" approach. One, China
cannot be isolated like the Soviet Union during the Cold War and has to be integrated into the international political and economic system. And,
two, a policy of engagement will encourage China to reform its political and economic institutions.

Conditional engagement can set unrealistic conditions Bushs Korea policy proves
Gard 9 Robert Gard, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general and former president of both National
Defense University and the Monterey Institute of International Studies, is chairman of the Washington,

D.C.-based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, where Travis Sharp is a military policy
analyst. March 1, 2009 Korea Times
Coordination and Realism on North Korea
During 2008, President Lee refused to grant North Korea unconditional aid and instead tied any meaningful concessions to
progress on denuclearization, thereby casting South Korea as the "bad cop," in the classic American idiom, and leaving the
United States to play "good cop" via the quixotic shuttle diplomacy of Christopher Hill.
This was a 180-degree reversal from the period when South

Korea employed the "Sunshine" policy of unconditional

engagement and the United States set as an unrealistic precondition to negotiations the complete,
verifiable, irreversible dismantlement of the North's nuclear program .

Conditional engagement can be hardline Bushs Korea policy proves

Cha 2 Victor D. Cha, professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service.
20, 2002 The Washington Post

December
Keep Calm on Korea SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A43 lexis

On policy toward North Korea, there is no denying that the gaps with the United States appear to be wide. In contrast to the conservative
candidate, Roh

declared during his campaign that he would continue the sunshine policy of
engagement with Pyongyang. This view stood in apparent defiance of the Bush administration's
highly conditional view of engagement and a harder-line posture of non-dialogue and diplomatic
pressure in the aftermath of revelations in October of North Korea's secret nuclear weapons
program.

Conditional engagement can be a hard-line stance

Chung 13 By Chung Min-uck February 14, 2013 Korea Times President-elect to stake principled
stance

lexis

Yun Byung-se, a career diplomat and the architect of the president-elect's 'trustpolitik' doctrine, was recently named the nominee
for the foreign ministerial post.
The doctrine calls for engagement with the North while standing firm against any provocations from the North. Experts

say his
engagement policy is 'conditional' which is almost the same as a hard-line stance if the North
doesn't back down from its military provocations.

MUST TRY TO INFLUENCE

BROADER POLICY
T NOT ENGAGEMENT
A. Engagement is influence of policy. Being nice or improving relations is not
enough. The plan must seek to change broader policy
Crocker 9 Chester A. Crocker, professor of strategic studies at the Walsh School of Foreign Service
at Georgetown University, was an assistant secretary of state for African affairs from 1981 to 1989. 9-1409 New York Times Terms of Engagement
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/opinion/14crocker.html
Lets get a few things straight.

Engagement in statecraft is not about sweet talk. Nor is it based on the illusion
that our problems with rogue regimes can be solved if only we would talk to them. Engagement is
not normalization, and its goal is not improved relations. It is not akin to dtente, working for
rapprochement, or appeasement.
So how do you define an engagement strategy? It does require direct talks. There is simply no better way to convey authoritative statements of
position or to hear responses. But establishing

talks is just a first step. The goal of engagement is to change the

other countrys perception of its own interests and realistic options and, hence, to modify its policies
and its behavior.
Diplomatic engagement is proven to work in the right circumstances. American diplomats have used it to change the
calculations and behavior of regimes as varied as the Soviet Union, South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, Cuba, China, Libya and,
intermittently, Syria.

B. Violation the plan increases contacts for their own value, not to change
broader policy. The objectives of influence must be specified for policy
analysis.
Hayden 13 Craig Hayden, USC Center for Public Diplomacy June 20th, 2013 Engagement
is More Convenient than Helpful: Dissecting a Public Diplomacy Term
http://intermap.org/2013/06/20/engagement-is-more-convenient-than-helpful-dissecting-a-publicdiplomacy-term/
Yet the

ambiguity of engagement also provides cover for policy-makers seeking some relief from the
mandate of measurement and evaluation. One of Wallins arguments is worth quoting at length:
If anything, using the term engagement can sometimes provide the user with a perceived ability to
forgo one of the most difficult parts of public diplomacythat is demonstrating metrics which
indicate whether or not ones efforts are succeeding at influencing the target audience. In other
words, the user of engagement may feel as though they neednt actually explain the effects of
their activities because they are engaging by nature of the word.

C. The affirmative interpretation is bad for debate

Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash, but the affirmative
interpretation is too big. There are an infinite number of economic and diplomatic
contacts that could be made. Only by limiting the plan to contacts which are
important enough to influence policy can we set a reasonable limit on the topic.
D. T is a voter for pedagogical reasons its the only way we can learn to
rigorously test ideas and respond to rigorous testing

EXTENSION ENGAGEMENT MUST

INFLUENCE BROADER POLICY
Engagement is extending incentives to change behavior it is more than mere
interaction
Haass and OSullivan 2K Richard N. Haass, formerly a senior aide to President George Bush, is
Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution AND Meghan L.
OSullivan, is a Fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution Terms of
Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies Survival, vol. 42, no. 2, Summer 2000, pp. 11335
Taylor & Francis online http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1093/survival/42.2.113#preview
The term engagement was popularised in the early 1980s amid controversy about the Reagan administrations policy of constructive
engagement towards South Africa. However, the term itself remains a source of confusion. Except in the few instances where the US has sought

America arguably engages states and actors all the time simply by
interacting with them. To be a meaningful subject of analysis, the term engagement must refer
to something more specific than a policy of non-isolation. As used in this article, engagement
refers to a foreign-policy strategy which depends to a significant degree on positive incentives to
achieve its objectives. Certainly, it does not preclude the simultaneous use of other foreign-policy instruments such as sanctions or
to isolate a regime or country,

military force: in practice, there is often considerable overlap of strategies, particularly when the termination or lifting of sanctions is used as a
positive inducement. Yet the

distinguishing feature of American engagement strategies is their reliance on

the extension or provision of incentives to shape the behaviour of countries with which the US has
important disagreements.

Engagement tries to change policy of adversaries it is not appeasement

Takeyh 9
Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
October 7, 2009 The Boston Globe
The Essence of Diplomatic Engagement http://www.cfr.org/diplomacy-and-statecraft/essence-diplomaticengagement/p20362
It is Obama's declared engagement

policy that has raised the ire of critics and led them to once more take refuge in
the spurious yet incendiary charge of appeasement. Columnist Charles Krauthammer recently exclaimed, "When France chides
you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom." Acknowledgement of America's misjudgments is derided as an unseemly apologia while
diplomacy is denigrated as a misguided exercise in self-delusion. After all, North Korea continues to test its nuclear weapons and missiles, Cuba
spurns America's offers of a greater opening, and the Iranian mullahs contrive conspiracy theories about how George Soros and the CIA are
instigating a velvet revolution in their country. Tough-minded conservatives are urging a course correction and a resolute approach to the gallery
of rogues that the president pledges to embrace.

Such views miscast the essence of diplomatic engagement . Diplomacy is likely to be a painstaking process and it may
not work with every targeted nation. However, the purpose of such a policy is not to transform adversaries into
allies, but to seek adjustments in their behavior and ambitions. North Korea, Cuba, Syria, and Iran would be offered
a path toward realizing their essential national interests should they conform to global conventions on issues such as terrorism and proliferation.

Not all positive incentives are engagement

Resnick 1 Dr. Evan Resnick, Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University, Assistant
Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University, Defining Engagement, Journal of International
Affairs, Vol. 54, No. 2, (Spring 2001), pp. 551-566, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24357749
A second problem associated with various scholarly treatments of engagement is the tendency to
define the concept too broadly to be of much help to the analyst. For instance, Cha's definition of
engagement as any policy whose means are "non-coercive and non-punitive" is so vague that
essentially any positive sanction could be considered engagement. The definition put forth by Alastair
Iain Johnston and Robert Ross in their edited volume, Engaging China, is equally nebulous. According to
Johnston and Ross, engagement constitutes "the use of non-coercive methods to ameliorate the non-status
quo elements of a rising power's behavior."14 Likewise, in his work, Rogue States and US Foreign Policy,
Robert Litwak defines engagement as "positive sanctions."15 Moreover, in their edited volume, Honey
and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, Richard Haass and Meghan O'Sullivan define
engagement as "a foreign policy strategy that depends to a significant degree on positive incentives to
achieve its objectives."16 As policymakers possess a highly differentiated typology of alternative options
in the realm of negative sanctions from which to chooseincluding covert action, deterrence, coercive
diplomacy, containment, limited war and total warit is only reasonable to expect that they should have a
similar menu of options in the realm of positive sanctions than simply engagement. Equating
engagement with positive sanctions risks lumping together a variety of discrete actions that could
be analyzed by distinguishing among them and comparing them as separate policies. 14

Economic engagement seeks to change the other nation's policy

Jaktait 10 Gerda Jaktait, Doctoral Candidate Vytautas Magnus University Faculty of Political
Sciences and Diplomacy, Lithuania BALTIC JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS, VOLUME 3,
NUMBER 2 2010 CONTAINMENT AND ENGAGEMENT AS MIDDLE-RANGETHEORIES
http://versita.metapress.com/content/0w3157n438689417/fulltext.pdf
In the studies of international relations containment and engagement are often understood as strategies of foreign policy aimed to balance
the power of potential adversaries: containment strategy seeks to limit the power of adversaries by all means ,

engagement seeks
to change foreign (and domestic) policy of an adversary and to bring it into its sphere of
influence.

Economic engagement seeks to change the other nation's behavior to get

cooperation
Jaktait 10 Gerda Jaktait, Doctoral Candidate Vytautas Magnus University Faculty of Political
Sciences and Diplomacy, Lithuania BALTIC JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS, VOLUME 3,
NUMBER 2 2010 CONTAINMENT AND ENGAGEMENT AS MIDDLE-RANGETHEORIES
http://versita.metapress.com/content/0w3157n438689417/fulltext.pdf
The concept of engagement has different interpretations in the sphere of international relations. Manager of , Brookings Institution Richard

Haas and his colleague Meghan O'Sullivan defined engagement as the provision of incentives for a
particular state in order to shape its behaviour in the desired direction. 83 Professor of
Georgetown Univer sity Victor Cha describes engage ment as strategic interaction process to
encourage an adversary to co - operate. 84

Engagement is designed to influence

Wallin 13 Matthew Wallin, American Security Project, Jun 11, 2013 Engagement: What does it
Mean for Public Diplomacy? http://www.americansecurityproject.org/engagement-what-does-it-meanfor-public-diplomacy/
In recent years, diplomatic circles have been relying on the

term engagement to describe various communication and public

diplomacy activities with foreign publics. The term is used almost universally in government, the military,
academia, corporations and think tanks to describe a range of practices designed to influence or
persuade foreign audiences.

NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE

ECONOMIC
T SUBSTANTIALLY
A. SUBSTANTIALLY REQUIRES AT LEAST A 2% REDUCTION --- THIS IS
THE SMALLEST PERCENTAGE WE COULD FIND
Word and Phrases 1960
'Substantial" means "of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable." Bequest to
charitable institution, making 1/48 of expenditures in state, held exempt from taxation; such
expenditures constituting "substantial" part of its activitie s. Tax Commission of Ohio v. American
Humane Education Soc., 181 N.E. 557, 42 Ohio App.

B. PLAN VIOLATES -- its less than $13 billion in trade

US Trade Rep 16 Office of the United States Trade Representative 2016 The People's Republic
of China https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china
U.S.-China Trade Facts
U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $659.4 billion in 2015. Exports were
$161.6 billion; imports were $497.8 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was
$336.2 billion in 2015.
China is currently our largest goods trading partner with $598 billion in total (two way) goods trade
during 2015. Goods exports totaled $116 billion; goods imports totaled $482 billion. The U.S. goods trade
deficit with China was $366 billion in 2015.
Trade in services with China (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $61.3 billion in 2015. Services
exports were $45.4 billion; services imports were $15.9 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with
China was $29.5 billion in 2015.

C. THE AFFIRMATIVE MUST DEFEND AN INTERPRETATION

They cannot just quibble with our definition. They have to counter-define and
defend the limits of their definition. Substantially must be given meaning
CJS 83 Corpus Juris Secundum, 1983 , 765.
Substantially. A relative and elastic term which should be interpreted in accordance with the context
in which it isused. While it must be employed with care and discrimination, it must, nevertheless, be
given effect. 48

D. THE AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION IS BAD FOR DEBATE

Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash, and their interpretation
makes the topic too big. Permitting minor changes like the plan permits a huge
number of cases.
E. T IS A VOTER FOR PEDAGOGICAL REASONS its the only way we can
learn to rigorously test ideas and respond to rigorous testing

EXTENSIONS SUBSTANTIALLY
Investment statistics to add to trade valurs
US Trade Rep 16 Office of the United States Trade Representative 2016 The People's Republic
of China https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china
Investment
U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China (stock) was $65.8 billion in 2014 (latest data
available), a 9.8% increase from 2013. U.S. direct investment in China is led by manufacturing, wholesale
trade, and depository institutions.
China's FDI in the United States (stock) was $9.5 billion in 2014 (latest data available), up 12.0%
from 2013. China's direct investment in the U.S. is led by depository institutions, manufacturing, and
information services.
Sales of services in China by majority U.S.-owned affiliates were $43.3 billion in 2013 (latest data
available), while sales of services in the United States by majority China-owned firms were $4.4 billion.

MILITARY IS NOT EE OR DE
T - NOT ECONOMIC OR DIPLOMATIC
A. Military engagement is distinct from economic and diplomatic
Resnick 1 Dr. Evan Resnick, Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University, Assistant
Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University, Defining Engagement, Journal of International
Affairs, Vol. 54, No. 2, (Spring 2001), pp. 551-566, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24357749
In order to establish a more effective framework for dealing with unsavory regimes, I propose that we
define engagement as the attempt to influence the political behavior of a target state through the
comprehensive establishment and enhancement of contacts with that state across multiple issueareas (i.e. diplomatic, military, economic, cultural).
The following is a brief list of the specific forms that such contacts might include:
DIPLOMATIC CONTACTS Extension of diplomatic recognition; normalization of diplomatic relations
Promotion of target-state membership in international institutions and regimes Summit meetings and
other visits by the head of state and other senior government officials of sender state to target state and
vice-versa
MILITARY CONTACTS Visits of senior military officials of the sender state to the target state
and vice-versa Arms transfers Military aid and cooperation Military exchange and training
programs Confidence and security-building measures Intelligence sharing ECONOMIC
CONTACTS Trade agreements and promotion Foreign economic and humanitarian aid in the form of
loans and/or grants
CULTURAL CONTACTS Cultural treaties Inauguration of travel and tourism links Sport, artistic
and academic exchanges25

B. Violation the plan is military, as proven above. It is not economic or

diplomatic engagement.
C. The affirmative interpretation is bad for debate
Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash, but the affirmative
interpretation is too big. Military engagement, with the number of additional
options and a distinct literature, makes the topic unmanageable. .
D. T is a voter for pedagogical reasons its the only way we can learn to
rigorously test ideas and respond to rigorous testing

EXTENSION MILITARY NOT

Military to military exchange is distinct from diplomacy
Quirk 15 Sean P. Quirk, Lieutenant (junior grade), U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer stationed in
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and WSD-Handa Fellow with the Pacific Forum CSIS. November 09, 2015 The
Diplomat Reconciling Chinas PLAN: Strategic Intervention, Tactical Engagement
http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/reconciling-chinas-plan-strategic-intervention-with-tactical-engagement/
While engaging in strategic diplomacy, Washington should simultaneously pursue a campaign for
U.S-China mil-to-mil exchange as a means to let off steam in the pressure cooker that is the South China Sea. U.S. forward-deployed
forces the tip of the spear would need to work tactfully in meaningful naval exchanges with the PLAN to balance U.S. government officials
that would confront Beijings actions in diplomatic forums. From the track-II U.S.-China Strategic Dialogue to the official DCT between both
countries defense departments, increasing mil-to-mil exchange is a common refrain coming from bilateral dialogues and military experts. Both
countries defense

apparatuses should orchestrate a full range of meaningful exercises that show

tangible cooperation between their militaries, ultimately cultivating military trust. These exercises
could include joint training on maritime air encounters, counter-piracy, humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HADR), emergency evacuations,
and naval escort exercises, such as those that were recently completed. In a multilateral capacity, the United States and China could go so far as to
joint-host training events as an East Asian corollary to Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC), which the United States hosts in Hawaii every two years.
Both militaries could invite their partners in the region, particularly members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), to a large
multilateral training environment that builds trust across several international fronts.
A new era of U.S.-China mil-to-mil exchange should imitate diplomatic meetings as regular, recurring events. Military
exchanges between the two countries are currently episodic and highly vulnerable to political and congressional cancellation. The result? The
bulk of military unit exchanges between the two navies consist of adversarial shadowing of warships and unsafe military air interceptions
antagonistic events that should not form the foundation of our navies interactions. When official exchanges do occur, they are beneficial but
often heavily scripted and cursory. Port visits by U.S. warships to Hong Kong and mainland China are the most common means of unit-level
naval exchange. Yet political sensitivities stymie engagement of much value-added trust, replacing substance with formality. Even the cultural
exchanges that are common in all U.S. port visits are uncommon with port calls in China; activities such as crew-to-crew receptions, community
service, and athletic games between U.S. and Chinese forces do occur but are far too rare for the worlds two biggest powers.

Military to military exchange is military engagement

Quirk 15 Sean P. Quirk, Lieutenant (junior grade), U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer stationed in
Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and WSD-Handa Fellow with the Pacific Forum CSIS. November 09, 2015 The
Diplomat Reconciling Chinas PLAN: Strategic Intervention, Tactical Engagement
http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/reconciling-chinas-plan-strategic-intervention-with-tactical-engagement/
However, a strategy that reverses the domains of Engage and Hedge may foster both geopolitical stability and peace. The United States should
invert Engage and Hedge by hedging in the diplomatic realm and bolstering engagement at a mil-to-mil level. Hedging against Chinese
belligerence means aggressively denouncing Chinas strategic moves through state-to-state diplomacy. Washington

can simultaneously
engage in tactical mil-to-mil exchanges that decrease tension between opposing ships and aircraft .
This strategic diplomatic intervention with tactical military engagement is a two-pronged strategy to unequivocally denounce
Beijings expansionist actions and territorial claims in the East and South China Seas, while simultaneously stepping up mil-to-mil cooperation,
particularly with the PLAN.

NON-economic engagement includes arms transfers and military training they are
military engagement
Haass and OSullivan 2K Richard N. Haass, formerly a senior aide to President George Bush, is
Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution AND Meghan L.

OSullivan, is a Fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution Terms of
Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies Survival, vol. 42, no. 2, Summer 2000, pp. 11335
Taylor & Francis online http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1093/survival/42.2.113#preview
Similarly, limited forms of military engagement are almost always helpful in achieving foreign-policy goals, whether
these aims be modest or ambitious. In societies such as Pakistan, where the military is a key institution in political and daily life, maximising
contact with the armed forces particularly makes sense. If

the transfer of arms or dual-use technology would be counterproductive, programmes like Americas International Military Educational Training amount to sound
investments and should almost never be rescinded as a sanction. Not only do they enable the US to influence the conduct of the military
today, they allow America to build connections with military leaders who may be important political figures later in their careers.

NON-economic engagement is other than trade and investment like peacekeeping

and military ties
Ellis 5 R. Evan Ellis, an associate with Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., who focuses on simulation and war
gaming and Latin American security issues. Dr. Ellis work includes studies of the strategic implications of Chinese
trade and investment initiatives in the region, as well as system dynamics-based studies of democratic security in
Colombia and political mobilization in Venezuela. Dr. Ellis has performed tool-supported seminar games for a
number of business and military clients, including National Defense University, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense for Net Assessment, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, and the Federal Aviation Administration. Dr. Ellis
system dynamics work has also taken him into the arena of business strategic planning, naval systems engineering,
nuclear materials management and computer network architecture analysis. Dr. Ellis holds a PhD in politica; science
with a comparative politics specialization in ethnic violence. U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF
CHINESE INVOLVEMENT IN LATIN AMERICA 12 May 2005 https://www6.miami.edu/hemisphericpolicy/EllisUSNationalSecurityImplications050511.pdf

INCREASING CHINESE NON-ECONOMIC ENGAGEMENT WITH LATIN AMERICA

Chinas engagement with Latin America has not been limited to trade and investment, although Chinese
economic needs have arguably been a key driver of the expanded relationship. In addition to trade and
investment, China is stepping up its role in the region in a number of other ways, from participation in
regional peacekeeping forces to expanded military ties .

MUST BE EXCLUSIVELY WITH

CHINA
T WITH CHINA
A. Plan must be limited to China -- With indicates reciprocal relation
Collins 12 Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition William
Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007,
2009, 2012 http://www.dictionary.com/browse/with Dictionary.com
With /w; w/
preposition
9. often used with a verb indicating a reciprocal action or relation between the subject and the preposition's
object: agreeing with me, chatting with the troops

B. Violation the plan is not exclusive. It includes contacts with other nations
C. The affirmative interpretation is bad for debate
Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash, but the affirmative
interpretation is too big. Inclusion of other nations multiplies the preparation
requirements.
D. T is a voter for pedagogical reasons its the only way we can learn to
rigorously test ideas and respond to rigorous testing