Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Water Wars - arettadebate - home


  • pg 1
									Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... - 1 -
1AC— 1 of 11 ....................................................................................................................................... - 2 -
1AC— 2 of 11 ....................................................................................................................................... - 3 -
1AC— 3 of 11 Plan............................................................................................................................. - 4 -
1AC— 4 of 11 Advantages- SOPO .................................................................................................... - 5 -
1AC— 5 of 11 Advantages- SOPO Impact ........................................................................................ - 6 -
1AC— 6 of 11 Advantages- Water Wars ........................................................................................... - 7 -
1AC— 7 of 11 Advantages- Water Wars Impacts .............................................................................. - 8 -
1AC-- 8 of 11 Advantage-Diseases .................................................................................................... - 9 -
1AC-- 9 of 11 Advantage—Disease Impacts ..................................................................................... - 10 -
1AC-- 10 of 11 ADVANTAGE—Disease Impacts ........................................................................... - 11 -
1AC— 11 of 11 Solvency ................................................................................................................. - 12 -
2AC shell-- SOPO- Other Countries Won’t Launch Nukes ............................................................... - 13 -
2AC shell—Nuclear attack by terrorists most likely .......................................................................... - 14 -
2AC shell—Water Wars Certain W/O Plan ........................................................................................ - 15 -
2AC shell-- Water Wars= Extinction .................................................................................................. - 16 -
Terrorism=Extinction .......................................................................................................................... - 17 -
More Terrorism scenarios ................................................................................................................... - 18 -
U.S. Soft Power key to solving Terrorism .......................................................................................... - 19 -
A2- Soft Power Doesn’t Solve Terrorism ........................................................................................... - 20 -
uniqueness- Soft Power Low .............................................................................................................. - 21 -
More Soft Power Low ......................................................................................................................... - 22 -
Soft Power Rocks ................................................................................................................................ - 23 -
Plan=Soft Power ................................................................................................................................. - 24 -
Best Plan=Soft Power Card ................................................................................................................ - 25 -
Soft Power better than hard Power ..................................................................................................... - 26 -
Water Wars ......................................................................................................................................... - 27 -
Water Wars Solvency.......................................................................................................................... - 28 -
No Clean Water=Disease .................................................................................................................... - 29 -
Disease Kills a LOT of People ............................................................................................................ - 30 -
Disease Impacts .................................................................................................................................. - 31 -
Solvency of Disease ............................................................................................................................ - 32 -
A2- Corruption .................................................................................................................................... - 33 -
JUST Perm It!!!................................................................................................................................... - 34 -
A2- Natural Rainfall is enough ........................................................................................................... - 35 -

Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                                                1AC— 1 OF 11
Lochery 07, Water Team Director for CARE, 5/16/07
(Peter, “Beyond the Status Quo: Bringing Down Barriers to Water and Sanitation Provision in Africa through
Implementation of the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act,” Testimony before the United States House of
Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health,

Tackling the constraints to the expansion of water and sanitation services that I have outlined will require the US
government to increase the level of funding devoted toward these sectors. Funding must be targeted where it will have the
greatest impact in dealing with the constraints. Doing so must include addressing underlying accountability and capacity
issues and coordinating with other donor entities. The Water for the Poor Act made the provision of safe water, sanitation,
and hygiene an explicit objective of US foreign assistance and called for the State Department to develop a
comprehensive strategy outlining how the US would go about expanding equitable access to water and sanitation in
countries where the need is greatest. However, implementation of the Act has been limited and has not been backed by the
increased appropriations required to realize the goals encompassed in it. The passage of the Water for the Poor Act
presents an opportunity around which the US can bring expertise gained through programs in other regions of the world
and significantly expanded funding to bear in sub-Saharan Africa. The strategy required by the Act also helps address
gaps in responding to the African water crisis. These include: designating high priority recipient countries toward which
funding should be targeted; determining which of those countries are truly committed to instituting the necessary reforms
and enhancing accountability to their citizens; developing a system of measurable goals, benchmarks and timetables for
monitoring US foreign assistance; and coordinating assistance with other donor countries.
The US Government should also focus on complementary activities to strengthen civil societies’, governments’, and the media’s capacity to
scrutinize their water and sanitation sector and demand that money be used appropriately and effectively. This capacity building will benefit not only
the country receiving aid by ensuring that water and sanitation services are being delivered as they should be, but also the US as it will encourage the
careful use of foreign assistance funds.
The US response to the African water crisis to date has been inadequate in relation to the scope of the problem and the
impact that expanding access to water and sanitation services would have in addressing many other developmental
challenges. Although the US government took an important step by passing of the visionary Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005,
the current system of policies and institutions in place is not conducive to the US developing and implementing a shared, prominent and responsive
agenda adequate to the task of making meaningful change in the water and sanitation sector in Africa.
The first State Department Water for the Poor Act Report, which was released in June of 2006, was extremely useful in understanding
where and how US resources are being spent in the water and sanitation sector. However, it only met one of the seven broad requirements
of the Act and focused on water resources as a whole, rather than exclusively on safe drinking water and sanitation as
outlined in the legislation. The Report also provided a summary of current US water programming, rather than laying forth a comprehensive
The information presented in the Report revealed that in FY 2005, a bulk of US funding went to countries and regions of
strategic interest (like Afghanistan, Iraq, and the West Bank and Gaza), while only roughly $15 million in sustainable water supply
and sanitation funding went to sub-Saharan Africa, indisputably one of the areas of greatest need. The Report also counted the
amount spent in the emergency sector--which, depending on how you count, receives over 50% of total funding--toward what the US is spending on
water and sanitation.
While funding relief efforts is essential to saving lives, and an activity that the US should continue to invest in, emergency spending will only go so
far in addressing the issue of sustainable access to safe water and sanitation, particularly when there are limited funds for the transition from relief to
development. There is no substitute to increasing funding for developmental water and sanitation, which is why the Water for the
Poor Act explicitly called for the US to help “expand access to safe water and sanitation in an affordable, equitable, and
sustainable manner.”

Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                                             1AC— 2 OF 11


McMurray 07 (Claudia, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
May 21,

Today, more than 1.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water; 2.6 billion people – almost half the total
population in developing countries - lack access to proper sanitation. On any given day, approximately 50% of the
world’s hospital beds are filled with patients suffering from water and sanitation related diseases. Each year 1.8
million children in developing countries die from diarrheal disease - the second leading cause of death after pneumonia.
Globally, diarrhea kills at least as many people as tuberculosis or malaria, and five times more children than
HIV/AIDS. Beyond their direct public health consequences, inadequate water supply and sanitation are especially
important issues for women and girls. Women and girls who lack access to sanitation facilities must often wait until dark to relieve
themselves or do so in public and risk harassment and/or abuse. Young girls are less likely to attend classes if the school does not have suitable
hygiene facilities. This is particularly true after puberty and in areas where girls have access to adequate sanitation at home. One United Nations
study estimates that half the girls in Sub-Saharan Africa who drop out of primary school do so because of poor water and sanitation facilities. The
United States supports the two internationally agreed targets related to water and sanitation. These goals are commonly referred to as the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) on water and sanitation: In Mozambique, rural Senegal, and eastern Uganda, the UN reports that women spend on
average 15-17 hours per week collecting water – often walking 6 miles or more in the dry season. Each dollar spent on water and sanitation yields $8
dollars of benefits in saved time, increased productivity, and reduced health costs. Beyond the numbers, increased access to water and sanitation
would improve education, empower women, promote human dignity and reduce the pain and suffering associated with high child mortality rates. The
economic benefits of water go beyond the health impacts. Many agrarian-based economies are dependent on water - when it rains, economies can
grow; when it does not, those countries that lack the capacity to store and save water face economic decline and food insecurity, even famine . In
many African countries, there is a strong correlation between annual rainfall and the percentage change in GDP.
We have seen cases where water mismanagement and water pollution can reduce GDP by more than 2% - that’s
enough to keep a country in poverty, or if remedied, set it on a path towards economic growth. Hurricane Katrina
reminded us all of the tremendous economic damage that floods can bring to a region. Finally, more than 260
watersheds worldwide are shared by two or more countries. As water becomes scarce, tensions over shared resources are
likely to rise – both within countries and among countries. Promoting joint management and using water to build trust and
cooperation in conflict-prone regions are important tools in reducing the risks of future conflicts. In addition to building
trust and cooperation, water can also be an important tool in building democracies. Everyone wants reliable access
to safe water. People want to be invested in decisions that affect their well-being. They welcome participatory
decision making, transparency and accountability associated with water use at the local, national and regional levels. We
have heard cases where the first time a person has voted, it has been to elect a member to their local water board.
Therefore, working on water may also be a means of addressing an array of broader governance and sustainable
development challenges.

Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                  1AC— 3 OF 11 PLAN

Thus the plan---
The USFG should substantially increase its public health assistance by fully funding and
implementing the “Water for the Poor Act of 2005” to countries mandated in the resolution.

Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                      1AC— 4 OF 11 ADVANTAGES- SOPO

The U.S. has no Soft Power- Favorable opinion has plummeted in ¾ of the world
Sydney Morning Herald – 07 (“How the Mighty are Fallen,” January 23, 2007,

Global opinion on American foreign policy and the role of the US in world affairs, especially in the Middle East, has
plunged to new lows, with overwhelming condemnation of its handling of the war in Iraq. An authoritative BBC World
Service survey of more than 26,000 people from 25 countries across Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East shows that nearly
three in four people disapprove of how the US has dealt with Iraq over the past 12 months. Respondents were polled in
November and December - before the announcement by the US President, George Bush, of his new surge strategy in Iraq, and his plans to send an
extra 21,500 troops into Baghdad to quell the sectarian violence gripping the capital. The polling also showed global public opinion was
against US handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, where David Hicks has been held without trial for more than five
years, with 67 per cent of respondents opposed.

An international water purification program from the United States will drastically increase our
soft power
Hughes 05, (James M. director of the Center for Global Safe Water in the Rollins School of Public Health and director of the Program in Global
Infectious Diseases in the School of Medicine at Emory University,) Saving lives through global safe water. Emerging Infectious Diseases

The United States currently ranks last among the 22 member countries of the Development Assistance Committee of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in net official development assistance provided to developing countries,
when such assistance is measured as a percentage of gross national income (13). Today's political and social climate presents an
important opportunity to improve this situation. As Barry Bloom, Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, has written, "The
United States should be investing efforts and funds to strengthen the health structures in countries around the world. This
investment would protect our country and every other against global epidemics, save million of lives, and change the US
image from one of self interest to one of human interest" (14).

High U.S Soft Power Crucial to Winning War on Terrorism
Myers 07, Myers, Joanne J., Director of Merrill House Programs. Interview on Soft Power: The Means to success in World Politics. April 13,
2004. <> (D.K CDI ’07)

But the important role for soft power is to be found in the larger context. If you think of the war on terrorism as a clash between
Islam and the West—Huntington’s “clash of civilizations”—you are mischaracterizing the situation. It’s a clash within Islamic civilization,
between a group of people at the extreme who are trying to use force to impose their view of a pure version of their religion on
others, a majority who want things that are similar to what we want: a better life, education, health care, opportunities, and
a sense of dignity.
We will not prevail in this struggle against terrorism unless the majority wins, unless the moderates win. And we will not prevail
against extremists unless we are able to attract that majority, those moderates. That is the role of soft power.

Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                             1AC— 5 OF 11 ADVANTAGES- SOPO IMPACT

Terrorists, if left unchecked, will employ Nuclear Weapons
Ferguson 07, Ferguson, Charles D., Council of Foreign Relations. Preventing Catastrophic Nuclear Terrorism. March 11, 2006 (D.K CDI ’07)

More likely routes for terrorists to buy or be given a nuclear weapon involve corruption among nuclear custodians, black
markets, or a coup that brings to power officials sympathetic to terrorist causes. In these respects, Pakistan stands out as a
vexing security concern. First, it has a relatively new nuclear command and control system. Second, al-Qaeda and Taliban
forces have established a formidable presence in the region. Third, some elements of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence
(ISI) agency sympathize with the Taliban, although the extent to which the ISI has access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is
unclear. Fourth, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has twice been the target of assassination attempts. Fifth, the most
infamous nuclear black market originated in Pakistan. Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani metallurgist and the so-called
father of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, ran a nuclear distribution network that sprawled across Europe, Africa, and
Asia and supplied nuclear programs in Iran, Libya, and North Korea. Although no evidence has emerged that Khan’s
network sold nuclear materials or weapons to terrorists, his network did sell blueprints for a nuclear bomb to Libya.
Conceivably, terrorists or criminals may have obtained or eventually could obtain this information. The Khan network
also demonstrates that the Pakistani nuclear establishment is vulnerable to an insider threat.

Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                1AC— 6 OF 11 ADVANTAGES- WATER WARS

Now is the critical point for plan, water conflicts continue to develop and will soon explode
Elhance 99, Elhance, Arun P. Senior fellow at International Peace Academy, New York. Hydropolitics in the Third World: Conflict
and Cooperation in International River Basins. United States Institute of Peace Press. 1999. pp 4-5. CDI2k7 MRC.
More than two hundred river basins in the world are currently shared by two or more sovereign states.6 Of these, fifty-seven are in Africa, thirty-five
each in North and South America, forty in Asia, and forty-eight in Europe. All together, these basins cover about 47 percent of the total landmass on
earth, including 65 percent of continental Asia, 60 percent of Africa, and 60 percent of South America. The entire territory of some developing coun-
tries, such as Paraguay in South America and Uganda in Africa, is covered by international river basins. If, as has happened in Eastern Europe and
the erstwhile Soviet Union, some of the existing states in Africa and Asia break up into smaller states in the future, the number of international river
basins and the sovereign states sharing them will also increase. What is also important for this study is that although more than three hundred treaties
have been signed worldwide by states to deal with specific concerns about international water resources and more than three thousand treaties have
provisions relating to water, coordinated and integrated management of international river basins is still extremely rare. This is especially so for
almost all international basins in the Third World.7

Within a recently accumulating body of literature, broadly grouped under the title "environmental changes and acute conflict,"8 some scholars
have identified growing scarcity of freshwater as one of the primary causes of impending interstate conflict.9 The
potential for conflict over water is predicted to be specially high in the arid and semiarid regions of the Third World,
where rapidly growing water needs of individuals and societies are expected to put increasing pressures on the already
scarce, overexploited, and degraded freshwater supplies.IO Others have warned that growing pressures on scarce domestic
water supplies, combined with the fact that most remaining exploitable freshwater resources in the Third World are now
in international basins, are bound to accentuate the potential for acute interstate conflict. Some scholars assert that, in a geopolitical
sense, water is likely to become the "oil of the next century.,,12

Some ongoing and anticipated global environmental changes may further accentuate the potential for interstate conflict over
water. For example, a rise of only a few feet in the sea level from global warming would ruin the inland water supplies in
many low-lying developing countries, such as Egypt and Bangladesh, which already depend heavily on freshwater supplies originating outside
their borders. 13 Millions of "environmental refugees," forced out of their habitats by water scarcity and other environmental
disasters are expected to crisscross international borders in parts of Africa and Asia. Consequently, the territorial integrity and
the stability of many states are likely to come under severe strain.14 At the very least, many developing countries may soon find water
scarcity to be the most severe constraint for economic development and societal well-being.15 Thus, the literature on environmental changes and
acute conflict suggests that, if not through outright wars between states then certainly through great domestic upheaval, the
growing scarcity of freshwater is likely to lead to large-scale dislocation and violence in the Third World. 16

Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                        1AC— 7 OF 11 ADVANTAGES- WATER WARS IMPACTS

These conflicts will draw in outside powers and escalate to nuclear war
Deutsch 02, Founder of Rabid Tiger Project, 02
     [Deutsch, Jeffrey (Founder of Rabid Tiger Project (Political Risk Consulting and Research Firm focusing on Russia and
     Eastern Europe), "SETTING THE STAGE FOR WORLD WAR ID," Rabid Tiger Newsletter, Nov 18,]

                              nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars in the Congo (the country formerly
The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a
known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone, and domestic instability in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries,
as well as occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in part to "national" borders that cut across tribal ones) turn into a
really nasty stew. We've got all too many rabid tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the button rather
than risk being seen as wishy- washy in the face of a mortal threat and overthrown. Geopolitically speaking, Africa is
open range. Very few countries in Africa are beholden to any particular power. South Africa is a major exception in this respect - not to
mention in that she also probably already has the Bomb. Thus, outside powers can more easily find client states there than, say, in Europe where the
political lines have long since been drawn, or Asia where many of the countries (China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and don't need any
"help," thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside involvement very quickly. Of course, a proxy war alone may not induce the
Great Powers to fight each other. But an African nuclear strike can ignite a much broader conflagration, if the other powers are interested
in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in the first place have been facilitated by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an ocean of
troubled waters, and some people love to go fishing.

Water wars will unleash 60,000 nuclear weapons
Professor Princeton Weiner 1990,
[Weiner, Profressor Princeton, The Next 100 Years p.270]

If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb, the
Change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle East,
tram North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over dwindling water supplies and
rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint A climate shift in that single battle-scarred
nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some at the 60.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled
since Trinity.

Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                    1AC-- 8 OF 11 ADVANTAGE-DISEASES

Planting ’07 (Sasha, “Innovations outfront. Furthering the flow.” Financial Mail, 6/1/07, Lexis)
In Africa a child dies every 15 seconds from diseases related to unsafe water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene and,
according to the 2006 Human Development Report released by the UN Development Programme, 1,1bn people do not have
access to safe drinking water. The report estimates that over 76m people will perish from water-related disease by 2020
unless action is taken.

Tatlock ’06 (Christopher, Council on Foreign Relations, “WATER STRESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA”
k, accessed 6/27/07)

 In a global study conducted by the United Nations, unsafe water is responsible for around 80
percent of diseases and 30 percent of deaths in developing countries throughout the world. In Africa, which accounts for
90 percent of global cases of malaria, water stress plays an indirect role in curing malaria because it impedes the human
recovery process. The New York Times recently reported that Angola, despite heavy foreign investment in its oil sector, is
enduring a cholera epidemic among its poor linked to shoddy water quality and sanitation.

WATKINS ’06 (Kevin, Dir of Human Development Report Office – UN, “BEYOND SCARCITY: POWER, POVERTY
AND THE GLOBAL WATER CRISIS” Human Development Report, 2006,, accessed 6/ 28/07)

Unlike wars and natural disasters, the global crisis in water does not make media headlines. Nor does it galvanize
concerted international action. Like hunger, deprivation in access to water is a
silent crisis experienced by the poor and tolerated by those with the resources, the technology and the political power to
end it. Yet this is a crisis that is holding back human progress, consigning large segments of humanity to lives of poverty, vulnerability and
insecurity. This crisis claims more lives through disease than any war claims through guns. It also reinforces the obscene
inequalities in life chances that divide rich and poor nations in an increasingly prosperous and interconnected world and
that divide people within countries on the basis of wealth, gender and other markers for disadvantage. effective. The WHO estimates the total
annual economic benefit of meeting the water supply and sanitation MDG in Africa to be $22 billion.

Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                              1AC-- 9 OF 11 ADVANTAGE—DISEASE IMPACTS

Okongo, Senior Correspondent, 2006 (Edwin, Magic in a Packet Brings Safe Drinking Water to Kenyans, Mshale,, 12/01)

Clean drinking water can save lives, and Greg Allgood can testify. Allgood is the director of the Children’s Safe Drinking
Water, a Proctor & Gamble program dedicated to providing sanitary water in several developing countries, including
Kenya. Perhaps one of the most significant results of the project, Allgood says, is its role in prolonging the lives of
people infected with HIV/AIDS. In the Nyanza Province of Kenya, where Proctor & Gamble first launched the program
nearly three years ago, the health of people with AIDS has improved, Allgood says. This result, however, was accidental,
for Proctor & Gamble scientists did not know that clean water was important in boosting the immunity of those with
AIDS, he adds. “Frankly, despite being very smart scientists, we had really missed out,” says Allgood, who holds a
Ph.D. in toxicology. “I had not really thought about the connection between HIV/AIDS and safe drinking water. I hadn’t
really thought that it was such an important connection. The more we looked into it with research, the more we treated it
as an incredibly important link.” To illustrate how important that link is, Allgood cites the case of Jemima Odo, a woman
in Western Kenya, who was bedridden with AIDS and had no access to clean water. After she started drinking purified
water, her health improved to an extent where she gained some of the weight she had lost to the disease. “I used to have
a lot of diarrhea diseases affecting me and my family. But since I started treating our water, there has been a big change,”
Odo said in a CNN interview. Odo is now on antiretroviral drugs and heads a community group educating people on
prevention of HIV/AIDS and how to live healthy with the disease, Allgood says.

Mathiu 2000 [“Mutuma, AFRICA NEWS, July 15, p.
n&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us, accessed=6/3/2007 // CRP]

Every age has its killer. But Aids is without precedent. It is comparable only to the Black Death of the Middle Ages in the terror it evokes
and the graves it fills. But unlike the plague, Aids does not come at a time of scientific innocence: It flies in the face of space exploration, the
manipulation of genes and the mapping of the human genome. The Black Death - the plague, today easily cured by antibiotics and
prevented by vaccines - killed a full 40 million Europeans, a quarter of the population of Europe, between 1347 and 1352 . But it was a
death that could be avoided by the simple expedient of changing addresses and whose vector could be seen and exterminated. With
Aids, the vector is humanity itself, the nice person in the next seat in the bus. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide Every human
being who expresses the innate desire to preserve the human genetic pool through the natural mechanism of reproduction is potentially at risk. And
whereas death by plague was a merciful five days of agony, HIV is not satisfied until years of stigma and excruciating
torture have been wrought on its victim. The plague toll of tens of millions in two decades was a veritable holocaust, but it will
be nothing compared to the viral holocaust: So far, 18.8 million people are already dead; 43.3 million infected worldwide
(24.5 million of them Africans) carry the seeds of their inevitable demise - unwilling participants in a March of the Damned. Last
year alone, 2.8 million lives went down the drain, 85 per cent of them African; as a matter of fact, 6,000 Africans will die today. The daily
toll in Kenya is 500. There has never been fought a war on these shores that was so wanton in its thirst for human blood.
During the First World War, more than a million lives were lost at the Battle of the Somme alone, setting a trend that was to become fairly common,
in which generals would use soldiers as cannon fodder; the lives of 10 million young men were sacrificed for a cause that was judged to be more
worthwhile than the dreams - even the mere living out of a lifetime - of a generation. But there was proffered an explanation: It was the honour of
bathing a battlefield with young blood, patriotism or simply racial pride. Aids, on the other hand, is a holocaust without even a lame or bigoted
justification. It is simply a waste. It is death contracted not in the battlefield but in bedrooms and other venues of furtive intimacy. It is difficult to
remember any time in history when the survival of the human race was so hopelessly in jeopardy.
                                                                                                                                                      - 10 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                           1AC-- 10 OF 11 ADVANTAGE—DISEASE IMPACTS

Spread of virulent disease leads to human extinction
Ryan 97 [Ryan, Frank (M.D.) 1997 Virus X. page 366]

How might the human race appear to such an aggressively emerging virus? That teeming, globally intrusive
species, with is transcontinental air travel, massively congested cities, sexual promiscuity, and in the less affluent
regions - where the virus is most likely to first emerge - a vulnerable lack of hygiene with regard to food and water
supplies and hospitality to biting insects. The virus is best seen, in John Holland's excellent analogy, as a swarm of competing
mutations, with each individual strain subjected to furious forces of natural selection for the strain, or strains, most
likely to amplify and evolve in the new ecological habits .3 With such a promising new opportunity in the invaded
species, natural selection must eventually come to dominate viral
behavior. In time the dynamics of infection will select for a more resistant human population. Such a coevolution takes
rather longer in human‖ time - too long, given the ease of spread within the global village. And there lies the
danger. Joshua Lederberg's prediction can now be seen to be an altogether logical one. Pandemics are inevitable. Our incredibly rapid
human evolution, our overwhelming global needs, the advances of our complex industrial society, all have moved the
natural goalposts. The advance of society, the very science of change, has greatly augmented the potential for the
emergence of a pandemic strain. It is hardly surprising that Avrion Mitchison, scientific director of Deutsches Rheuma Forschungszentrum in Berlin,
asks the question: ―Will we survive! ‖ We have invaded every biome on earth and we continue to destroy other species so very rapidly that one eminent
scientist foresees the day when no life exists on earth apart from the human monoculture and the small volume of species useful to it. An increasing
multitude of disturbed viral-host symbiotic cycles are provoked into self-protective counterattacks. This is a
dangerous situation. And we have seen in the previous chapter how ill-prepared the world is to cope with it. It begs the
most frightening question of all: could such a pandemic virus cause the extinction of the human species?

                                                                                                                                               - 11 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                                 1AC— 11 OF 11 SOLVENCY

CSIS 2005 ( Global Water Futures Center for Strategic and International Studies, Sandia National Laboratories,
September 30,

From Iraq and Afghanistan to smaller interventions in sub-Saharan Africa, the United States has boldly stood up to massive
challenges related to water access and quality in recent years. But the responses have failed to turn successes into practice, and
the money that continues to trickle into recipient countries may arrive disaggregated from overarching foreign and country policies. Whether during
humanitarian relief missions, or in the course of government business, all too often approaches to country and regional development are taken on
spontaneously and without careful consultation with other agencies. The number of agencies—and departments and bureaus within agencies—
involved in international activity has increased tremendously in the post-cold war era. Globalization, not surprisingly, has impacted and enticed the
U.S. government and its constituent parts. The lingering challenge is for agencies to properly carry out underlying US government policies, and to
maximize scales of economy among efforts. Amidst this new proliferation of US government activity abroad and the importance of water, both the
“Medicine, Health, and Safe Water: A Currency for Peace Act of 2005” and the “Water for the Poor Act of 2005” introduced to Congress have
recognized the need for better central planning and a high-level mandate for addressing water-related activities. The former act calls on the Secretary
of State and the Administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to formulate—in consultation with foreign and domestic
actors in and out of government—a US strategy to meet the foreign policy objective of expanding global access to safe water and sanitation, while
encouraging sound water management. The latter bill charges solely the Administrator of USAID with a similar task. But, as described previously,
neither bill looks likely to pass Congress, or to receive funding. The language and approach of these bills, however, is appropriate. There is hope that
leadership will take these strong beginnings toward sustainable design, appropriate funding and structural reform. It is not unrealistic to claim that the
truly outstanding, cost-effective, forward-looking strategies from the U.S. government are based on multi-agency approaches. An integrated,
national strategy for global water issues continues to be an anomaly for one core reason—the absence of a clearly defined
mandate from above. A clash of cultures between government agencies, turf wars, unclear or limiting regulations, and a lack of resources inhibit
the dispersed units from coordinated planning and implementation. Nearly every federal agency or research institution has conducted an international
water project, but each applies this expertise on a limited, ad-hoc basis. Developing an integrated and cohesive international policy on water will be a
major step forward for coordinating efforts, fully utilizing the institutional knowledge of the U.S. government, and achieving many U.S. and foreign
policy goals. Until such time as Congress or the President sees fit to engage the issue of water, progress on the issue will continue to be hard-won.
Agencies, bureaus and individuals within them will continue to do good work, engaging this important issue abroad as they have for the past hundred
years—and especially the past two decades. NGOs and international organizations will sustain their efforts on water-related issues and will seek to
elevate the commitment of recipient governments and communities. But without more concerted US engagement with the issue, from the top levels
down, engagement will be costlier, less effective, and less connected to other standing US objectives, including considerations of national security.
From upholding important commitments to improving health, education and economic development around the globe and
promoting the stability of allies, water plays a critical role in meeting America’s objectives to maintain peace and
prosperity at home and abroad.

                                                                                                                                                    - 12 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0


Countries will not launch nukes…. They aren’t stupid enough
Waltz 81 (Kenneth, London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons:
More May Better”, Adelphi Paper, Numbers 171)

Many Westerners who write fearfully about a future in which third-world countries have nuclear weapons seem to view
their people in the once familiar imperial manner as 'lesser breeds without the law'. As is usual with ethno-centric views,
speculation takes the place of evidence. How do we know, someone has asked, that a nuclear-armed and newly hostile
Egypt or a nuclear-armed and still hostile Syria would not strike to destroy Israel at the risk of Israeli bombs falling on
some of their cities? More than a quarter of Egypt's people live in four cities: Cairo, Alexandria, Giza, and Aswan. More
than a quarter of Syria's live in three: Damascus. Aleppo, and Homs. What government would risk sudden losses of such
proportion or indeed of much lesser propor-tion? Rulers want to have a country that they can continue to rule. Some Arab
country might wish that some other Arab country would risk its own destruction for the sake of destroying Israel, but there
is no reason to think that any Arab country would do so. One may be impres-sed that, despite ample bitterness, Israelis
and Arabs have limited their wars and accepted constraints placed on them by others. Arabs did not marshal their
resources and make an all-out effort to destroy Israel in the years before Israel could strike back with nuclear warheads.
We cannot expect countries to risk more in the presence of nuclear weapons than they have in their absence.

                                                                                                                      - 13 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0


Recent evidence shows that a nuclear terrorist attack on U.S. is a goal of terrorist groups,
nuclear war more likely caused by terrorists than other scenarios
Allison 07 , “How Likely is a Nuclear Terrorist Attack on the United States?” Graham T. Allison, April 20, 2007

What about the motivation of terrorists that have attacked the American homeland?     Al-Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith has
stated al-Qaeda’s objective: “to kill 4 million Americans—2 million of them children—and to exile twice as many and
wound and cripple hundreds of thousands.” As he explains, this is what justice requires to balance the scales for casualties
supposedly inflicted on Muslims by the United States and Israel. Michael Levi argues, correctly, that such a tally could be reached in a
series of smaller installments, and our national security would benefit from insights into how to prevent such events. But ask yourself how many
9/11s it would take to reach that goal. Answer: 1334 [one thousand three hundred and thirty four], or one nuclear
Jihadi terrorists are not solely interested in murdering Americans. They are also vying for Muslim “hearts and minds” by
demonstrating that al-Qaeda is the “strong horse.” Bin Laden has challenged his followers to trump 9/11. The London and Madrid train
bombings set a bar: the first major bombing by Islamic terrorists on each country’s soil. Al-Qaeda’s next UK plot was more audacious, and had it
been successful, it would have taken more lives.
It is not clear that al-Qaeda can be deterred. Osama bin Laden describes the current conflict as a clash between the Muslim
ummah [community of believers] and the “Jewish-Christian crusaders.” A nuclear terrorist attack, like the bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would be a world-changing event. Bin Laden well might accept significant risk of failure for a
chance to draw battle lines in his clash of civilizations

Terrorists will do what other countries dare not: Terrorists will risk EXTINCTION
Morgan 04 (Matthew, Captain…get it…captain morgan….Parameters, “the origins of New Terrorism, Spring

The National Commission on Terrorism found that fanaticism rather          than political interests is more often the motivation now, and
that terrorists are more unrestrained than ever before in their methods.4 Other scholarly sources have reached similar conclusions.
Terrorism is increasingly based on religious fanaticism.5 Warnings about the dangers of nontraditional terrorism were raised frequently
in pre-2001 literature.6 For instance, Ashton Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow declared in the pages of Foreign Affairs in 1998 that a new
threat of catastrophic terrorism had emerged.7 Earlier concerns about alienating people from supporting the cause are no longer important
to many terrorist organizations. Rather than focusing on conventional goals of political or religious movements, today’s terrorists seek
destruction and chaos as ends in themselves. Yossef Bodansky’s Bin Laden quotes from S. K. Malik’s The Quranic Concept of War:
Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is in the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is
obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the ends meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing
decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him.8
Today’s terrorists are ultimately more apocalyptic in their perspective and methods. For many violent and radical
organizations, terror has evolved from being a means to an end, to becoming the end in itself. The National Commission
on Terrorism quoted R. James Woolsey: “Today’s terrorists don’t want a seat at the table, they want to destroy the table
and everyone sitting at it.”

                                                                                                                                                        - 14 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                      2AC SHELL—WATER WARS CERTAIN W/O PLAN

Water makes global wars likely – 2 ways – and its historically proven & perception
C.S.I.S. 05 Center for Strategic Int’l Studies – Sandia National Laboratory
[“Global Water Futures: Addressing Our Global Water Future,” 9/30/05, White Paper,

Finding 3: Water problems are geopolitically destabilizing. Water scarcity and poor water quality have the
potential to destabilize isolated regions within countries, whole countries, or entire regions sharing limited
sources of water. There is an increasing likelihood of social strife and even armed conflict resulting from the
pressures of water scarcity and mismanagement. Water scarcity and poor water quality could lead to increased
potential for domestic instability and heightened transnational tensions. History shows that in many regions around the
world, water has been a source of considerable cooperation between nations sharing water resources. However, increasing populations
and water scarcities may bring about a different future. In the years ahead, instability or conflict related to water supplies will
likely take two forms: (1) domestic unrest caused by the inability of governments to meet the food, industrial, and
municipal needs of its citizens, and (2) hostility between two or more countries—or regions within a country—possibly
leading to greater insecurity or conflict, caused by one party disrupting the water supply of another. Over the past
five years, several domestic upheavals involving water have erupted across the world. These violent episodes have
occurred in countries with varying degrees of economic development and in both rural and urban settings. However , they were all
largely the results of the perception or reality of rising imbalances in water availability and the failures of
governments to effectively and transparently mediate the concerns and demands of various users . Growing water imbalances will
also alter international relationships. Changing patterns of food trade caused by water scarcity will influence
international alliances. Cross-border relations between riparian countries in water stressed regions will undoubtedly be shaped by
water sharing agreements or the lack thereof. Conflicts related to water scarcity will continue to strike hardest in regions
already facing geopolitical stress and conflict and will exert enormous pressure on existing transboundary and
domestic instabilities.

Absent plan, water wars are certain: Egypt proves
Elhance 99, Arun P. Senior fellow at International Peace Academy, New York. Hydropolitics in the Third World: Conflict and
Cooperation in International River Basins. United States Institute of Peace Press. 1999. pp 231. CDI2k7 MRC.

Among the cases examined in this study, the Jordan, Euphrates-TIgris, and Nile basins highlight the potential of hydro politics to ignite
and fuel acute interstate conflicts. Hydropolitics has already played an important role in instigating armed hostilities in
the Jordan basin, and on several occasions the Euphrates-TIgris basin has been brought to the brink of war by a
conflict over water. Repeated warnings by Egyptian leaders that they would declare war on any upstream state
that attempts to reduce the flow of the Nile are clear reminders of how far some Third World states may be
prepared to go to protect their water security.

There is little doubt that in the absence of multilateral agreements for the cooperative development and sharing of transboundary water
resources, the potential for acute interstate conflicts will keep escalating in all the international basins in the Third
World. However, whether or not states will actually go to war with their neighbors over water will depend on the interplay of a broad
range of factors and circumstances specific to each basin.

                                                                                                                                   - 15 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                             2AC SHELL-- WATER WARS= EXTINCTION

Unfortunately – these water shortages in Africa will spark a global escalation that
culminates in nuclear conflict & human extinction – acting now is key
NASCA 06 National Association for Scientific & Cultural Appreciation
[ “Water Shortages – Only A Matter Of Time.”

Water is one of the prime essentials for life as we know it. The plain fact is - no water, no life! This becomes all the more
worrying when we realise that the worlds supply of drinkable water will soon diminish quite rapidly. In fact a recent
report commissioned by the United Nations has emphasised that by the year 2025 at least 66% of the worlds population will
be without an adequate water supply. As a disaster in the making water shortage ranks in the top category.
Without water we are finished, and it is thus imperative that we protect the mechanism through which we derive our supply of this life
giving fluid. Unfortunately the exact opposite is the case. We are doing incalculable damage to the planets capacity to generate water and
this will have far ranging consequences for the not too distant future. The United Nations has warned that burning of fossil fuels is the
prime cause of water shortage. While there may be other reasons such as increased solar activity it is clear that this is a situation over
which we can exert a great deal of control. If not then the future will be very bleak indeed! Already the warning signs are there. The last
year has seen devastating heatwaves in many parts of the world including the USA where the state of Texas experienced its worst
drought on record. Elsewhere in the United States forest fires raged out of control, while other regions of the globe experienced drought
conditions that were even more severe. Parts of Iran, Afgahnistan, China and other neighbouring countries experienced their worst
droughts on record. These conditions also extended throughout many parts of Africa and it is clear that if circumstances
remain unchanged we are facing a disaster of epic proportions. Moreover it will be one for which there is no easy answer.
The spectre of a world water shortage evokes a truly frightening scenario. In fact the United Nations warns that
disputes over water will become the prime source of conflict in the not too distant future. Where these shortages
become ever more acute it could forseeably lead to the brink of nuclear conflict . On a lesser scale water, and the price
of it, will acquire an importance somewhat like the current value placed on oil. The difference of course is that while oil is not vital for
life, water most certainly is! It seems clear then that in future years countries rich in water will enjoy an importance that perhaps they
do not have today. In these circumstances power shifts are inevitable, and this will undoubtedly create its own strife and tension. In the
long term the implications do not look encouraging. It is a two edged sword. First the shortage of water, and then the increased stresses
this will impose upon an already stressed world of politics. It means that answers need to be found immediately. Answers that will both
ameliorate the damage to the environment, and also find new sources of water for future consumption . If not, and the problem is left
unresolved there will eventually come the day when we shall find ourselves with a nightmare situation for
which there will be no obvious answer.

                                                                                                                                      - 16 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0


Unchecked Terrorism leads to extinction
FOR TERRORISM STUDIES. Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
February 28, 2002)
The Threat of Modern Terrorism Scores of countries have experienced sporadic and relentless
subnational and government-sponsored terrorism in the post-World War II period. Epitomizing the
state of anarchy of contemporary life and increasingly becoming a universal nightmare, terrorism
includes: kidnapping of businesspeople, assassination of political leaders, bombing of embassies, and
hijacking of aircraft. Modern terrorism, in contrast to its older features, has introduced a new breed of warfare
in terms of threats, technology, victimization, and responses. Perhaps the most significant dangers that evolve
from modern day terrorism are those relating to the safety, welfare, and rights of ordinary people; stability of
the state system; health of economic development; expansion of
democracy; and possibly survival of civilization itself. And yet, on September 11, 2001, Americans
were stunned to witness the unprecedented drama of terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center
of the nation's commercial and military powers. Thus, despite the end of the Cold War and the
evolving era of the New World Order, terrorism remains as threatening as ever. Undoubtedly, conflicts
emerging from ideological, religious, and national animosities will continue to make terrorism a global
problem well into the twenty-first century.

                                                                                                               - 17 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                      MORE TERRORISM SCENARIOS

A terrorist attack causes inter-state nuclear war
Speice 06, JD 2006 College of William and Mary [Patrick, 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427, lexis]
Organizations such as the Russian military and Minatom are now operating in circumstances of great stress. Money
is in short supply, paychecks are irregular, living conditions unpleasant ... [D]isorder within Russia and the resulting strains within
the military could easily cause a lapse or a breakdown in the Russian military's guardianship of nuclear
weapons. 38 Accordingly, there is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device or
fissile material from Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent
Soviet-era nuclear security measures. 39 Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of
methods, including "steal[ing] one intact from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold
or given one by [*1438] such a country, or [buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of
these ways." 40 Equally threatening, however, is the risk that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and
construct a nuclear device on their own. Very little material is necessary to construct a highly destructive
nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon
are not significant. 42 Moreover, the sheer number of methods that could be used to deliver a nuclear device into the
United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was
built. 43 Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are
the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 44 Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the
rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45
This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 46
Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there [*1439] are still at least 20,000 former scientists who are
unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire, 47 raising the chilling prospect that these scientists
will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or terrorist
organizations with nuclear ambitions. 48 The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear
knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly
horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and
economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the
perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially
triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50 In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear
knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may
trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. 51 This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear
attacks against the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, 52 as well as increase the likelihood that
regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. 53

                                                                                                                                    - 18 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0


U.S. Soft Power key to terrorism – anti-americanism and lack of allied support fuels it
Nye 2004 (Joseph, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government,
“Soft Power, The Means to Success in World Politics,”)

It is true that the new threat of transnational terrorism increased American vulnerability; and some of our unilateralism
after September 11 was driven by fear. But the United States cannot meet the new threat identified in the national
security strategy without the cooperation of other countries. They will cooperate up to a point out of mere self-interest, but
their degree of cooperation is also affected by the attractiveness of the United States. Take Pakistan for example. President Pervez
Musharraf faces a complex game of cooperating with the United States in the war on terrorism while managing
a large anti-American constuency at home. He winds up balancing concessions and retractions. If the United
States were more attractive to the Pakistani populace, we would see more concessions in the mix. It is not smart to
discount soft power as just a question of image, public relations, and ephemeral popularity. As we argued earlier, it is a form of
power—a means of obtaining desired outcomes. When we discount the importance of our attractiveness to other countries, we
pay a price. Most important, if the United States is so unpopular in a country that being pro-American is a kiss of
death in that country’s domestic politics, political leaders are unlikely to make concessions to help us. Turkey,
Mexico, and Chile were prime examples in the run-up to the Iraq War in March 2003. When American policies lose their legitimacy and
credibility in the eyes of others, attitudes of distrust tend to fester and further reduce our leverage. For example, after 9/11 there was
an outpouring of sympathy from Germans for the United States, and Germany joined a military campaign
against the Al Qaeda network. But as the United States geared up for the unpopular Iraq War, Germans
expressed widespread disbelief about the reasons the U.S. gave for going to war such as the alleged connection of Iraq
to 9/11 and the imminence of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. German suspicions were reinforced by what they
saw as biased American media coverage during the war, and by the failure to find weapons of mass destruction
or prove the connection to 9/11 in the aftermath of the war. The combination fostered a climate in which conspiracy theories
flourished. By July 2003, according to a Reuters poll, one-third of Germans under the age of 30 said that they
thought the American government might even have staged the original September 11 attacks. Absurd views feed
upon each other, and paranoia can be contagious. American attitudes toward foreigners harden, and we begin to believe that the rest of
the world really does hate us. Some Americans begin to hold grudges, to mistrust all Muslims, to boycott French wines and
rename French fries, to spread and believe false rumors.12 In turn, foreigners see Americans as uninformed and insensitive
to anyone interests but their own. They see our media wrapped in the American flag. Some Americans in turn succumb to
residual strands of isolationism, and say that if others choose to see us that way, “To hell with ‘em.” If foreigners are going to be like
that, who cares whether we are popular or not. But to the extent that Americans allow ourselves to become isolated, we
embolden our enemies such as Al Qaeda. Such reactions undercut our soft power and are self-defeating in terms
of the outcomes we want.

                                                                                                                                        - 19 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                      A2- SOFT POWER DOESN’T SOLVE TERRORISM

Soft power DOES solve terrorism
Nye, 04 [Joseph, Distinguished Service Professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and previously served
as dean there, The Decline of America's Soft Power., By: Nye fr., Joseph S., Foreign Affairs, 00157120, May/Jun2004, Vol. 83, Issue 3]

Some hard-line skeptics might counter that, whatever its merits, soft power has little importance in the current
war against terrorism; after all, Osama bin Laden and his followers are repelled, not attracted, by American
culture and values. But this claim ignores the real metric of success in the current war, articulated in Rumsfeld's
now-famous memo that was leaked in February 2003: "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading
more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying
against us?" The current struggle against Islamist terrorism is not a clash of civilizations; it is a contest closely
tied to the civil war raging within Islamic civilization between moderates and extremists. The United States and
its allies will win only if they adopt policies that appeal to those moderates and use public diplomacy effectively to
communicate that appeal. Yet the world's only superpower, and the leader in the information revolution, spends as little on public
diplomacy as does France or the United Kingdom--and is all too often outgunned in the propaganda war by fundamentalists hiding in

                                                                                                                                - 20 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                    UNIQUENESS- SOFT POWER LOW
The U.S. has no Soft Power- Favorable opinion has plummeted in ¾ of the world
Sydney Morning Herald 07 (“How the Mighty are Fallen,” January 23, 2007,

Global opinion on American foreign policy and the role of the US in world affairs, especially in the Middle
East, has plunged to new lows, with overwhelming condemnation of its handling of the war in Iraq. An
authoritative BBC World Service survey of more than 26,000 people from 25 countries across Asia, Europe,
Latin America and the Middle East shows that nearly three in four people disapprove of how the US has dealt
with Iraq over the past 12 months. Respondents were polled in November and December - before the
announcement by the US President, George Bush, of his new surge strategy in Iraq, and his plans to send an
extra 21,500 troops into Baghdad to quell the sectarian violence gripping the capital. The polling also showed
global public opinion was against US handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, where David Hicks has been
held without trial for more than five years, with 67 per cent of respondents opposed.

American soft power has been declining since the Bush administration – Empirical
Nye 04 – Professor of International Relations at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government – 04 (Joseph Nye, “Can
America Regain Its Soft Power After Abu Ghraib?,” YaleGlobal, July 29, 2004,

Even before the Abu Ghraib photos were published, anti-Americanism had been rising around the world. Polls
showed that the United States lost some thirty points of attraction in Europe in 2003, and America’s standing had
plummeted in the Islamic world from Morocco to Indonesia. In 2000, nearly three quarters of Indonesians had a favorable
view of the US. By May 2003, that had plummeted to 15 percent. In Jordan and Pakistan, a 2004 poll shows
that more people are attracted to Osama bin Laden than to George Bush. Yet both these countries are on the front line of
the battle against Al Qaeda. Clearly, the Bush Administration has squandered America’s soft power. Soft power is the
ability to get what one wants by attracting others rather than threatening with sticks or paying them with carrots. When you can attract
and co-opt people, you do not have to spend as much on carrots and sticks to get the outcomes you want. Soft power is based on our
culture, our political ideals, and our policies. If one thinks of Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms in the 1940s, of Jimmy Carter’s
human rights policies in the 1980s, or Ronald Reagan’s appeals for freedom in Eastern Europe in the 1980s, all were investments in
American soft power. But George W. Bush’s rhetoric about bringing democracy to the Middle East has not had the
same type of appeal, in large part because it looked like a unilateral American imposition. Democratic values can be
attractive and thus help to produce soft power, but not when they are imposed at gunpoint. The result is shown by the polls in the region.
Being pro-American has become so politically toxic in the domestic politics of many countries that their leaders
have to limit their cooperation with us.

                                                                                                                                     - 21 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                            MORE SOFT POWER LOW

U.S. soft power is continually getting lower and other countries are filling in the void
Brown 06 - former Foreign Service officer who practiced public diplomacy – 06 (John Brown, “America's Fading Glow,” June 5,

There are several reasons for the decline of America’s soft power. The most immediate is President George W.
Bush’s aggressive foreign policy. Since our internationally condemned attack on Iraq, our country is seen as the illegitimate
sheriff that shoots first and asks questions later. Contrast this to the worldwide sympathy for the U.S. immediately after 9/11, when we
were considered the attacked, not the attacker. Due to our unilateralism, we have lost the respect—to be sure, never
universal—that we earned as a world leader resisting the totalitarianisms of the twentieth century. Second to the
aggression is the hypocrisy of Bush's rhetoric. The president proclaims the pursuit of human freedom as his
foremost goal while we are becoming a parody of the Statue of Liberty, covered in prison torture garb from Abu
Ghraib, obsessed with our own security but with nothing liberating (or even stabilizing) to offer to the rest of the world.
Forget the “democratization” programs (also called “transformational” ) hyped by Condoleezza Rice’s State Department. For much of
the world, the reality is that we prop up dictators in Libya and Kazakhstan so long as they give us what we want. And, while claiming
that America cares about humanity, Bush disregards transnational issues such as the global environment and supports visa regulations
that offend foreigners who wish to visit or study in the United States. A third reason for our loss of soft power is that, with
over six years of Bush’s “we’re just plain folks” rule, our cultural exports increasingly fail to seduce overseas.
To be sure, the best purveyors of American consciousness abroad don't necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.
government. Yet, judging by the barometer of pop culture, American style is no longer as "cool" as it was, despite the international
success of some Hollywood blockbusters. Culturally, we are more and more perceived as the old New World. “[T]he American brand
isn't at its shiniest,” U-2’s Bono recently stated. “The neon is crackling." Meanwhile, other countries—notably China—are
filling the vacuum created by America’s disappearing soft power with information and exchange programs. And
popular culture from other countries—films made in India’s Bollywood, manga comics from Japan —is
providing an alternative to America’s pop dominance around the world.

                                                                                                                                   - 22 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                                 SOFT POWER ROCKS

Soft power Rocks – its key to solving all the world’s problems and providing
stability to the world – any other approach fails.
NYE 02 dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government
[Joseph, 12-28, “A Whole New Ball Game,”]
The paradox of American power is that world politics is changing in a way that means the strongest power since
Rome cannot achieve some of its most crucial international goals acting alone. The US lacks both the
international and domestic prerequisites to resolve conflicts that are internal to other societies, and to monitor
and control transnational transactions that threaten Americans at home. On many of the key issues today, such
as international financial stability, drug smuggling, the spread of diseases or global climate change, military power
simply cannot produce success, and its use can sometimes be counterproductive Instead as the largest country,
the United States must mobilize international coalitions to address these shared threats and challenges. The
agenda of world politics has become like a three-dimensional chess game in which one can win only by playing vertically as well as
horizontally. On the top board of classic interstate military issues, the United States is likely to remain the only superpower for years to
come, and it makes sense to speak in traditional terms of unipolarity or hegemony. However, on the middle board of interstate economic
issues, the distribution of power is already multipolar The United States cannot obtain the outcomes it wants on trade,
anti-trust or financial regulation issues without the co-operation of the European Union, Japan and others. It
makes little sense to call this American hegemony. And on the bottom board of transnational issues, power is widely distributed and
chaotically organized among state and non-state actors. It makes no sense at all to call this a unipolar world or an American empire. And
this is the set of issues that is now intruding into the world of grand strategy as illustrated by Bush's new doctrine. Yet the new
unilateralist part of his administration still focuses solely on the top board of classic military solutions. Like children with a
hammer, all problems look like nails to them. Soft power The willingness of other countries to co-operate on the
solution of transnational issues depends in part on their own self interest, but also on the attractiveness of
American positions. That power to attract and persuade is what I call soft power. It means that others want what you
want, and there is less need to use carrots and sticks to make others do what you want. Hard power grows out of a country's military and
economic might. Soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, ideals, and policies. Hard power will always remain
important in a world of nation states guarding their independence, but soft power will become increasingly important in
dealing with the transnational issues that require multilateral cooperation for their solution. Yet a recent Pew
Charitable Trust poll finds that American policies have led to lowered favourability ratings for the US over the
past two years in 19 of 27 countries, including particularly the Islamic countries so important to the war on
terrorism. The new unilateralist wing of the administration is urging policies that squander our soft power. No
large country can afford to be purely multilateralist, and sometimes the United States must take the lead by itself as it did in Afghanistan.
And the credible threat of a unilateral option was probably essential to get the UN Security Council to pass resolution 1441 that brought
the inspectors back to Iraq. But the US should incline toward multilateralism whenever possible as a way to legitimize its
power and to gain broad acceptance of its new strategy. Pre-emption that is legitimized by multilateral sanction is far less
costly and a far less dangerous precedent than when we assert that we alone can act as judge, jury and executioner.
Granted, multilateralism can be used by smaller states to restrict American freedom of action, but this does not mean that it is not
                                                  others and to define the national interests broadly to include
generally in American interests. Learning to listen to
global interests will be crucial to the success of the new strategy and whether others see the American
preponderance it proclaims as benign or not. The challenge for the United States will be to learn how to work
with other countries to better control the non-state actors that will increasingly share the stage, with nation-
states. President Bush is correct that America will continue to be the only military superpower, and its military
strength remains essential for global stability and as part of the response to terrorism. But to successfully
implement his new strategy, he will need to pay more attention to soft power and multilateral co-operation than
was true of the early stages of his administration.

                                                                                                                                       - 23 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                                 PLAN=SOFT POWER
US public health promotion is key to soft power
Kickbusch 02 [Ilona, Head of the Division of Global Health at Yale University School of Medicine, in the Department of
Epidemiology and Public Health, acts as an advisor to the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organization, the
Commission of the European Union, the World Bank, Foundations, Non-Government Organizations and the private sector on matters of
global health and the development of health promotion, Health Affairs, “Influence And Opportunity: Reflections On The U.S. Role In
Global Public Health”]
Today’s global health crisis illustrates many of the transnational governance challenges the United States faces today. In the arena of
global health, the United States can create a new role for itself by moving beyond a national-interest paradigm
and strengthening its "soft power" position in health. Health in recent administrations has moved beyond being "just" a
humanitarian issue to being one with major economic and security interests. Despite U.S. unilateralism, new approaches to global health
governance are being developed by other actors, who have influenced the U.S. agenda and made important contributions. Yet a larger
leader is still needed, especially in identifying and following a sound legal and regulatory global health
governance system; bringing political legitimacy; and setting priorities. Responsible political action is needed to develop
a new mindset and lay the groundwork for better global health in the future. It is justice, not charity, that is wanting in the world. Mary
Wollstonecraft, 1792 In his recent analysis of U.S. foreign policy, Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,
argued that the United States must come to terms with what he calls the paradox of American power: The stronger the United
States is, the more it must orient itself toward a new global community. It must rely less on traditional measures of power such as
military strength and more on the "soft" power that comes from culture, values, and institutions.1 This differentiation between
hard and soft power has been a major subtext of all discussions on America’s role in the new global environment since the fall of the
Berlin Wall and in particular in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the face of
a global health crisis, Nye’s paradox can help to define a new role that America can play. This role would imply
strengthening the U.S. soft-power role in health by moving beyond both a national-interest paradigm and an international disease-control
model based on macroeconomic arguments. A key dimension of this new global health strategy would be to address the
larger issues of social justice, democracy, and law that are paramount to health in the context of globalization
and that are part of U.S. political tradition. The global community expects the United States to take soft-power
leadership. The repeated suggestion of a new Marshall Plan or the call to contribute more generously to the new
Global Fund on AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria is not just about more dollars. It is the plea of the global
community that the United States apply the strength of vision and determination that it has shown in other
historical crises to health and development today.2

Lack of US public health assistance undermines US soft power and international
cooperation to solve HIV and poverty
Booker and Colgan 04, Salih Booker, exec director of Policy Analysis and Communications at Africa Action and Ann-Louise
Colgan, Assistant director, 04, Current History, 5/23, “'Compassionate Conservativism' Comes to Africa”,

The Bush administration’s foreign policy priorities over the past year have left Africa worse off in a variety of
ways. America’s preoccupation with the "war on terrorism" and its military misadventure in Iraq have distracted
attention and resources, injuring Africa politically and economically. The White House has turned the continent
into geo-strategic real estate, defining its value in terms of access to oil and military bases, and viewing US-Africa
relations again through a cold-war-like lens. More broadly, to the extent that American actions have undermined the very
notion of multilateralism, they remain directly at odds with Africa’s interests. Africa’s priorities - in particular,
the fight against HIV/AIDS and poverty - are being ignored, and US unilateralism threatens to undercut
international cooperation.

                                                                                                                                     - 24 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                          BEST PLAN=SOFT POWER CARD

US aid improves the United States’ image and is key to solving global diseases which
will lead to extinction
Benetar and Fox 05 [Solomon R., Renee C. – prof of Medicine and Bioethics @ University of Cape Town and prof of Sociology
and Bioethics @ University of Pennsylvania “Meeting Threats to Global Health: A call for American leadership,” Perspectives in
Biology and Medicine 48.3 (2005) 344-361, Project Muse]

Although the application of major biomedical advances has yielded spectacular results for individual health, there has been little improvement in the
health of whole populations. There is a "back to the future" irony in the fact that at the inception of the 21st century, the eruption and spread  of
a multitude of "old" and "new" infectious diseases has become the most serious global threat to the health of
humankind. At this historical juncture, the United States is the country with the most potential for favorably
influencing global health and health care. Although there are historical, cultural, economic, and political factors
that impede the United States from rising to this challenge, there is both a moral imperative and a rational long-
term self-interest basis for the U.S. medical profession and government to exercise leadership in facing the
health challenges of tragic and genocidal proportions that threaten everyone in an increasingly interdependent
world. Despite Spectacular Achievements in individual health as a result of a host of biomedical advances, and the potentialities of new biotechnology
for improving global health equity (Singer and Daar 2001), there has been little [End Page 344] improvement in the health of whole populations. Indeed,
in some parts of the world the health and life expectancy of billions of people have deteriorated in recent decades, especially
with the emergence and reemergence of infectious diseases, among which the HIV/AIDS pandemic has had the most
catastrophic consequences (WHO 2002). There is a "back to the future" irony in the fact that the eruption and spread of a multitude of "old" and
"new" infectious diseases has become the most serious global threat to the health of humankind (Benatar 2001a; Garrett 1994). The current
epidemics of infectious diseases—including the "white plague" of tuberculosis that was supposed to have yielded to the powers of
antibiotics—take their greatest toll on populations of so-called developing countries, and also among disadvantaged groups in
privileged "developed" societies (Benatar 2001b; Gandy and Zumla 2003). The recent epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS; Lee et al.
2003) is a small-scale example of the new, acute, rapidly fatal infectious diseases that may, like the 1918–1919 flu
epidemic, sweep through the world with high mortality rates in all countries, with accompanying profound
social and economic implications.

                                                                                                                                                    - 25 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                           SOFT POWER BETTER THAN HARD POWER

Hard power can’t solve the root causes of international violence: soft power is key
Nye, 03 [Joseph, Distinguished Service Professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and previously served
as dean there, Title: U.S. Power and Strategy After Iraq., By: Nye, Jr., Joseph S., Foreign Affairs, 00157120, Jul/Aug2003, Vol. 82,
Issue 4]

Although the new unilateralists are right that maintaining U.S. military strength is crucial and that pure multilateralism is
impossible, they make important mistakes that will ultimately undercut the implementation of the new security
strategy. Their first mistake is to focus too heavily on military power alone. U.S. military power is essential to
global stability and is a critical part of the response to terrorism. But the metaphor of war should not blind
Americans to the fact that suppressing terrorism will take years of patient, unspectacular civilian cooperation with
other countries in areas such as intelligence sharing, police work, tracing financial flows, and border controls.
For example, the American military success in Afghanistan dealt with the easiest part of the problem: toppling an oppressive and
weak government in a poor country. But all the precision bombing destroyed only a small fraction of al Qaeda's
network, which retains cells in some 60 countries. And bombing cannot resolve the problem of cells in Hamburg or
Detroit. Rather than proving the new unilateralists' point, the partial nature of the success in Afghanistan illustrates the
continuing need for cooperation. The best response to transnational terrorist networks is networks of
cooperating government agencies.

Hard power alone doesn’t solve conflict and risks alienating allies
Nye, 03 [Joseph, Distinguished Service Professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and previously served
as dean there, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone]

Of course, hard and soft power are related and can reinforce each other. Both are aspects of the ability to achieve our purposes by
affecting the behavior of others. Sometimes the same power resources-9- can affect the entire spectrum of behavior from coercion to
attraction. 31 A country that suffers economic and military decline is likely to lose its ability to shape the
international agenda as well as its attractiveness. And some countries may be attracted to others with hard power
by the myth of invincibility or inevitability. Both Hitler and Stalin tried to develop such myths. Hard power can also be
used to establish empires and institutions that set the agenda for smaller states—witness Soviet rule over the countries
of Eastern Europe. But soft power is not simply the reflection of hard power. The Vatican did not lose its soft power when it
lost the Papal States in Italy in the nineteenth century. Conversely, the Soviet Union lost much of its soft power after it
invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia, even though its economic and military resources continued to grow. Imperious policies
that utilized Soviet hard power actually undercut its soft power. And some countries such as Canada, the
Netherlands, and the Scandinavian states have political clout that is greater than their military and economic
weight, because of the incorporation of attractive causes such as economic aid or peacekeeping into their
definitions of national interest. These are lessons that the unilateralists forget at their and our peril.

                                                                                                                                   - 26 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                                      WATER WARS

Water scarcities cause economic downfall, conflict and continued human suffering
 CSIS 2005 ( Global Water Futures Center for Strategic and International Studies, Sandia National Laboratories, September 30,

   This new era of water crises presents important risks and opportunities for U.S. international strategic
   interests. Inaction by the United States and others will lead toward continued economic stagnation in many
   regions of the globe, may contribute to domestic and international tensions or unrest, and will certainly result in
   further human suffering and death across the planet. Conversely, proactive, innovative, and coordinated actions by
   the United States with the international community will advance many major strategic priorities of U.S.
   foreign policy, including economic development and the building of participatory institutions. Clearly, water can no longer be
   regarded solely as a tool or byproduct of U.S. development and humanitarian programs. Yet, the most effective means to integrate
   water projects into the broader international engagement strategy of the United States remain unclear.

Unchecked water shortages will cause increases in diseases and military conflict
Gleick 1999 (Peter H., co-founder and President of the Pacific Institute, B.S. from Yale University and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the
University of California, Berkeley, The human right to water, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, 9
July) water_needs/human_right_to_water.txt

Many international organizations work to meet the unmet water needs of human populations, including the United Nations, the Water
Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council, the World Bank, international aid organizations such as US AID, the Swedish Agency for
Development Cooperation, the Canadian International Development Agency and nongovernmental organizations such as WaterAid and
Water for People. These efforts have made significant progress in increasing access to basic water needs for hundreds of millions of
people. Yet, despite these efforts, many water-related problems have worsened. The incidence of cholera soared in
the 1990s and expanded in geographic extent. The populations in urban areas without access to clean water and
sanitation actually increased between 1980 and 1990, despite great efforts to meet these needs (WHO, 1996). Even
more distressing has been the apparent diffculty the world water community has had in setting new targets and
goals for meeting basic needs. The world food community has set and continually revised action plans for reducing hunger. The
World Food Council met in 1989 in Cairo to propose a specific Programme of Cooperative Action. In that same year, a meeting of food
experts in Bellagio, Italy, set nutritional goals for the year 2000, which were reaffirmed at the 1990 UN World Summit for Children. The
1992 UN International Conference on Nutrition laid out a World Declaration and Plan of Action for Nutrition. While huge populations
remain undernourished, even less success has been achieved in setting and meeting water-related goals. While this paper is not the place
for a comprehensive discussion of water policy and politics, it seems likely that an appropriate mix of economic, political and
social strategies can be developed to reliably provide for basic needs. And despite a growing emphasis on
markets, if a `market' system is unable to provide a basic water requirement, States have responsibilities to meet
these needs under the human rights agreements discussed above. Unless international organizations, national and local
governments and water providers adopt and work to meet a basic water requirement standard, large-scale human
misery and suffering will continue and grow in the future, contributing to impoverishment, ill-health and the
risk of social and military conflict. Ultimately, decisions about defining and applying a basic water requirement
will depend on political and institutional will

                                                                                                                                   - 27 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                           WATER WARS SOLVENCY
The plan solves for safe water access, improved sanitation, health, and water relations
McMurray,    2007 (Claudia McMurray, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State,
State New Service) p.Lexis

The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 emphasizes the provision of affordable and equitable
access to safe water and sanitation in developing countries as a component of U.S. foreign assistance programs.
It also requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with the USAID and other U.S. Government (USG)
agencies, to develop a strategy "to provide affordable and equitable access to safe water and sanitation in
developing countries" within the context of sound water management.
We have been working to develop this strategy over the past few years and have made considerable progress in laying out a framework
for how the U.S. will approach the issue of providing access to safe water and sanitation in developing countries, consistent with the
Secretary's goal of transformational diplomacy. (We delivered the first Report to Congress on the development and implementation of
this strategy last June. A second Report will be available June 1st of this year.) In the strategy, we have defined three goals for
U.S. efforts on water:

First, to increase access to, and the effective use of, safe water and sanitation to improve human health. This includes
both short and long-term sustainable access to safe water and adequate sanitation, as well as education activities
to improve hygiene.

Second, to improve the management, and increase the productivity, of water resources. This includes optimizing
the benefits of water among competing uses, while ensuring human needs are met and environmental resources are
protected. It also includes minimizing the use of, and increasing the productivity of, water used in industrial, agricultural and
consumptive sectors, as well as supporting pollution prevention programs that reduce water losses in domestic water systems.

Finally, our third goal is to improve water security by strengthening cooperation on shared waters. This includes
strengthening the institutions and processes to improve basin-level watershed management and public participation in planning
and service delivery.

To achieve these goals, we are working diplomatically and through projects and programs to address critical needs, build capacity,
and demonstrate innovative approaches that can be scaled up to the levels necessary to meet the tremendous demands. We are focusing
our efforts on six areas: governance, mobilization of domestic resources, infrastructure, protection of public
health, science and technology cooperation, and humanitarian assistance. Each area addresses a portion of the global
water challenge, so I will spend some time describing each.

                                                                                                                                 - 28 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                       NO CLEAN WATER=DISEASE

Water shortages cause diseases.
Blackwell 02, Savannah Blackwell, November 6, 2002, online:
    The people of Ghana are in trouble. During the rainy season, cholera cases reach epidemic proportions in
    Accra, the nation's capital. Nearly half of the recorded visits to health facilities in 2000 were related to
    malaria. And the number of people infected by guinea worm is rising to the point where entire
communities face economic devastation. All of these diseases are attributable to the same fundamental
  problem: lack of access to clean, drinkable water. And the reason the rates of illness are increasing,
  activists say, is because many people, mostly the poor, have been cut off from water supplies in the
  country's move toward privatizing its entire water system. In 1998 officials at the World Bank and the
   International Monetary Fund told Ghanaian government officials that if they wanted $400 millions in loans to
   rebuild the publicly owned and controlled water system, they had to make some changes that would, in
   effect, prime the system for takeover by politically powerful, private water companies: The government had
   to end its practice of making wealthy and industrial customers subsidize the cost of providing water to poor
   communities. In addition, water had to be sold at full market rates.

Dirty water kills 5000 children a day.
Ashley Seager, November 10, 2006, online:,,1944324,00.html
Nearly two million children a year die for want of clean water and proper sanitation while the world's
  poor often pay more for their water than people in Britain or the US, according to a major new report.
  The United Nations Development Programme, in its annual Human Development report, argues that 1.1
  billion people do not have safe water and 2.6 billion suffer from inadequate sewerage.

Water shortages increase the spread of diseases killing a child every 8 seconds- must
take action now- water is a human right
Brian Howard, The Environmental Magazine, Sept-Oct 2003, online:
    In fact, although many people might agree philosophically with Mikhail Gorbachev when he said, "Clean
    water is a universal human right," the world is sharply divided in terms of access to safe hydration.
    Those who can afford it are guzzling ever-increasing numbers of designer water bottles, while half the
    world's population lacks basic sanitation facilities, according to the United Nations (UN). Diseases
    caused by unsanitary water kill five to 12 million people a year, most of them women and children. A
    child dies every eight seconds from a preventable water-borne disease. Only one-hundredth of one
    percent of the blue planet's water is readily accessible for human use. The World Resources Institute (WRI)
    estimates that 2.3 billion people currently live in "water-stressed areas." Hydrologists cite much of
    Africa, northern China, pockets of India, Mexico, the Middle East and parts of western North America as
    regions facing severe water shortages. Some of the world's largest cities, including Mexico City, Bangkok
    and Jakarta, have severely over-pumped their groundwater aquifers.

                                                                                                                   - 29 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                    DISEASE KILLS A LOT OF PEOPLE

Water diseases will kill 50 million in 15 years
C.S.I.S. 05 Center for Strategic Int’l Studies – Sandia National Laboratory
[“Global Water Futures: Addressing Our Global Water Future,” 9/30/05, White Paper,

Consequences for Individuals The consequences of inadequate water supply and sanitation are most severe for
individuals. To begin with, the human health costs are dramatic. Five million people die every year as a result of
waterborne diseases or water-related illnesses. Intestinal parasites infect about 10 percent of people in
developing nations; 6 million people are blind from trachoma; 200 million are infected with schistosomiasis and
20 million suffer severe consequences from the disease. All these problems and many more are related to poor
water quality and lack of sanitation (WHO and UNICEF 2000). Gleick (2004a) estimates that current trends will result in
the deaths of between 30 and 50 million people from water-related diseases by the year 2020.

Water isn’t a threat just in Africa but a world wide threat
UNESCO Courier 95             (January, Water Diseases,

Waterborne Diseases <THE       World Health Organization has estimated that 80 per cent of all sickness and disease in the
world is attributable to inadequate water or sanitation. This includes the effects of drinking contaminated water,
water acting as a breeding ground for carriers of disease, and caused by lack of washing. Five types of disease are
related to water and sanitation: Waterborne diseases spread by drinking (or washing food, utensils, hands or face in)
contaminated water. They include typhoid, cholera, dysentery, gastro-enteritis (diarrhoea) and, where pollution
is exceptionally severe, infective hepatitis. Water-washed infections of the skin and eyes spread by inadequate
water for personal washing. They include trachoma, scabies, yaws, leprosy, conjunctivities, skin sepsis and
ulcers. Water-based diseases, so called because the vector (carrier) is an invertebrate aquatic organism. The most important are
schistosomiasis and the guinea worm.Diseases with water-related insect vectors. Mosquitoes (carriers of malaria, filariasis, yellow fever)
and blackfiles (carriers of river blindness) need water for breeding. Certain tse-tse fly vectors of sleeping sickness usually bite near
water. Infections primarily caused because of defective sanitation, such as hookworm. DIARRHOEA directly kills 6 million
children in developing countries each year, and contributes to the death of up to 18 million people. Victims often
die of dehydration. Survivors are weakened and easy prey to other diseases. In unsanitary conditions the disease easily passes from child
to child. The cure is rehydration, the replacement of lost fluid and salts by weak sugar and salt solution taken either orally or by
intravenous drip. TRACHOMA is a virus infection of the outer parts of the eye, eventually causing build-up of scar tissue over
the eye and blindness if untreated. Spread by flies and touch. 500 million people infected world-wide.
SCHISTOSOMIASIS (bilharzia, or snail fever) is caused by a parasite spread by freshwater snails (see article). It is today a
cause of misery and debility for 200 million people in Africa, the Middle East, parts of Latin America and southeast Asia.
Infectious schistosome larvae penetrate the skin when a person swims or wades in water. The larvae migrate to the blood stream where
they become adult worms. Eggs leave the body via faeces or urine. Symptoms include fever, painful liver, blisters on skin and blood in
faeces and urine. Ironically schistosomiasis has spread dramatically because of the spread of irrigation canals and dams which provide a
suitable habitat for the snails and their parasite. RIVER BLINDNESS (onchocerciasis) is caused by minute worms carried from
person to person when bitten by small black files that breed in fast flowing water. Worms spread inside body often to eyes where damage
and scarring eventually cause blindness. An estimated 30 million people are affected. MALARIA, common in many of the hot,
tropical parts of the world, is carried from person to person by carrier mosquitoes. Almost any amount of water is sufficient for the
mosquitoes to lay their eggs. Each year it is estimated that 800 million people suffer from the fevers of malaria.>

                                                                                                                                    - 30 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                                       DISEASE IMPACTS

Disease spread risks human extinction
Ryan 97 [Ryan, Frank (M.D.) 1997 Virus X. page 366]

How might the human race appear to such an aggressively emerging virus? That teeming, globally
intrusive species, with is transcontinental air travel, massively congested cities, sexual promiscuity, and in the
less affluent regions - where the virus is most likely to first emerge - a vulnerable lack of hygiene with regard
to food and water supplies and hospitality to biting insects. The virus is best seen, in John Holland's excellent
analogy, as a swarm of competing mutations, with each individual strain subjected to furious forces of natural
selection for the strain, or strains, most likely to amplify and evolve in the new ecological habits .3 With such a
promising new opportunity in the invaded species, natural selection must eventually come to dominate viral
behavior. In time the dynamics of infection will select for a more resistant human population. Such a
coevolution takes rather longer in human‖ time - too long, given the ease of spread within the global
village. And there lies the danger. Joshua Lederberg's prediction can now be seen to be an altogether logical one. Pandemics
are inevitable. Our incredibly rapid human evolution, our overwhelming global needs, the advances of our
complex industrial society, all have moved the natural goalposts. The advance of society, the very science of
change, has greatly augmented the potential for the emergence of a pandemic strain. It is hardly surprising that
Avrion Mitchison, scientific director of Deutsches Rheuma Forschungszentrum in Berlin, asks the question: ―Will we survive! ‖ We have
invaded every biome on earth and we continue to destroy other species so very rapidly that one eminent scientist foresees the day when no life exists
on earth apart from the human monoculture and the small volume of species useful to it. An increasing multitude of disturbed
viral-host symbiotic cycles are provoked into self-protective counterattacks. This is a dangerous situation.
And we have seen in the previous chapter how ill-prepared the world is to cope with it. It begs the most
frightening question of all: could such a pandemic virus cause the extinction of the human species?

                                                                                                                                                 - 31 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                           SOLVENCY OF DISEASE

Increased sanitation and water will eliminate diseases
Clasen and Cairncross 04 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (Thomas and Sandy, Household water
management: refining the dominant Paradigm Tropical Medicine and International Health, volume 9 no 2, pp 187–191, February 2004)

[The second     body of evidence stems from a relatively new approach to enhancing water quality as part of a
public health initiative: improved household water management. While the extent to which even safe water
becomes faecally contaminated during collection, transport, storage and drawing in the home is well known
(Wright et al. 2003), only recently have low-cost health interventions been promoted to improve and preserve water
quality at the household level (Mintz et al. 2001). Based on a comprehensive review of these interventions, the WHO concluded
that there was now 'conclusive evidence that simple, acceptable, low-cost interventions at the household and
community level are capable of dramatically improving the microbial quality of household stored water and
reducing the attendant risks of diarrhoeal disease and death' (Sobsey 2002). This has lead to the formation of the
WHO-sponsored International Network for the Promotion of Safe Household Water Treatment and Storage, a
global collaboration of UN and bilateral agencies, NGO's, research institutions and the private sector committed
to improved household water management as a component in water, sanitation and hygiene programmes.]

MORRIS 05, 2005 (Malcolm S. Morris, Chairman of the Millennium Water Alliance, Committee of House International Relations,
CQ Congress Testimony) p.Lexis

    My testimony will focus on Ethiopia for brevity but my comments are translatable
    to many countries. 70% or 42 million people in Ethiopia lack access to clean
    drinking water. Just      drinking water is the greatest need. The provision of sanitation is
    critical and boosts the health benefits of clean water. Once water and sanitation are
    provided it is critical to break past habits and teach people to utilize these new interventions.
    Let's focus on a plan that works. First, emphasis is on rural water and
    sanitation. Rural areas are most lacking in access to clean water all over Africa.
    A Secretariat is first formed in the country consisting of a manager and a
    financial officer. The Secretariat draws interested parties together from member
    organizations, US AID, UNICEF, Country water ministries and even local water
    NGO's. Standards for water quality, types of pumps, and applicable regulations are
    established. The Secretariat oversees collection of information on finances and
    service levels and provides a single source of information to governments and
    funding agencies.

                                                                                                                            - 32 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                                   A2- CORRUPTION

Plummer and Cross, 2007 (Janelle and Piers, “Tackling Corruption in the Water and Sanitation Sector in Africa”,, Water Integrity Network)

   In this set of African countries, a general correlation is also found between perceived corruption levels and water
   reform. Notwithstanding the range of other influencing factors, countries with less corruption seem to have made
   better progress in WSS sector reform. Figure 7.1 shows the CPI together with a water reform ranking for 11 African
   countries (WSP-Africa forthcoming). While South Africa leads the region in water sector reform, Benin, Senegal, and
   Uganda also show significant progress, whereas the Democratic Republic of Congo has only recently initiated the
   reform process and struggles with postconflict levels of corruption. Stronger water reforms and lower
   corruption correlate with higher levels of access to water supply. The limitations of the indexes or the existence of a
   range of factors influencing access notwithstanding, the available information shows an expected correlation between
   higher levels of access to water supply and countries that have made progress in WSS sector reform. Analysis
   also reveals that it takes time for reforms to be translated into better outcomes. Uganda stands out as an example of a country where
   water reforms have not yet been reflected in increased levels of access. The correlation among sector reform, lower
   corruption, and higher rates of access is supported by utility-specific studies and cross-cutting global studies.
   Evidence provided in investment climate surveys that measure the perception of petty corruption in WSS
   delivery (Kenny 2006) supports the finding that corruption seems to be strongly correlated with lower levels
   of WSS coverage.

Shirley 07, President of the Ronald Coase Institute, 2007 (Mary M., “Urban Water Reform: What We Know, What We Need to
Know”,, The Center for New Institutional Social Sciences)

   Economists recognize that water supply has some public good characteristics that justify government
   involvement. Water is essential to life so governments need to assure that all citizens have access to some
   minimal amount of clean drinking water. The amount of drinking water required to sustain human life is very small,
   however, only about two liters a day in temperate climates and four liters daily in hot climates. Additional water is needed for
   hygiene and this has positive externalities: it reduces the incidence of communicable diseases such as cholera. But hygiene too
   requires only relative small amounts; poor people without washing machines or gardens are estimated to need only 20 to 50 liters of
   water per day for all domestic purposes (Rijsberman 2004, p.499). Economists generally agree that government regulation is
   also required to monitor water quality, to control monopoly providers, and to reduce negative externalities
   for other users from the diminution and pollution of water sources. A large literature on optimal regulatory design
   calls for a politically independent public body to set rates and monitor performance based on objective and verifiable information,
   with a neutral and independent appeals process (for a good sense of this literature see Armstrong, et al. 1994, Joskow 2000).

                                                                                                                                    - 33 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                                     JUST PERM IT!!!

The US working with <____________ > is best, diverse partnerships are key to solving
the water issue
CSIS 2005 ( Global Water Futures Center for Strategic and International Studies, Sandia National Laboratories, September 30,

   Finding 7: Sustainable strategies must include diverse and multi-institutional partnerships. No single
   government agency, Non-Governmental Organization, corporation, international organization, or academic
   institution can provide all the required expertise or coordinate a sufficiently integrated response to meet the
   nature and scope of the challenge we face. Partnerships across social organizations are necessary for both
   developing and implementing sustainable solutions. The varying competencies of government agencies,
   international organizations, Non-Governmental Organizations, the private sector, and academic institutions can all
   provide specific expertise to addressing water challenges in situations across the globe; but no single organization
   can effectively address these challenges without the support and cooperation of the others. In both donor governments and
   recipient governments, agencies from federal to local levels have specialized knowledge that will deliver
   optimal solutions only when resources are pooled and collaboration is enhanced. The private sector has
   increasingly become engaged in issues related to freshwater, lending both expertise and financial resources. Greater
   coordination and cooperation between the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, governments, international
   organizations, and academic institutions both within countries and across borders will foster truly innovative and
   sustainable solutions. Greater cross-sector collaboration must occur to foster more effective resource
   planning and implementation.

Khalizad 95, Zalmay Khalilzad, policy analyst, RAND, WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Spring 1995, p. 84+. (DRGAF/D8)

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding
principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the
United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment
would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.
Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major
problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level
conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling
the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers,
including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability
than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

                                                                                                                               - 34 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                  A2- NATURAL RAINFALL IS ENOUGH

Africa shortage in rainfall leading to droughts
Nduru 07, Moyiga; Johannesburg-based journalist;7/2/07

PRETORIA, Apr 26 (IPS) - InAfrica, 25 countries are expected to experience water scarcity or water stress in the
next 20 to 30 years. This translates into 16 percent or 230 million of Africa's population facing water scarcity by
2025, and 32 percent or 460 million people living in water-stressed countries by that time. This is according to a
paper presented by Ahmed Nejjar of the World Health Organisation's (WHO) regional office for Africa at a conference looking at water
management. The two-day conference, entitled Water Management Africa 2007, was attended by representatives from multilateral,
nongovernmental and governmental agencies. It ended in the South African capital Pretoria on April 24. Signs of climate change
can be seen in decreasing rainfall and severe droughts in Africa, environmentalists warned at the conference.
River levels are dropping. In extreme cases, rivers are drying up. ''I went to Limpopo in early April and found the river
level low. April is supposed to be the end of the rainy season (when the water level should still be high in South Africa),'' Marius
Classen, manager of water resources at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), a governmental research organisation
based in Pretoria, told IPS. This scenario is reflected across Africa. For example, the level of Lake Victoria, Africa's largest inland
fresh water, has been decreasing in the past decade which has affected Uganda's electricity supply. Some
environmentalists have attributed the decrease in the level of Lake Victoria to climate change while others have blamed it on a decision
to divert water from the lake to a nearby dam. Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania all extract water from the lake. The Limpopo river, which is
shared between South Africa and its northern neighbour Zimbabwe, gave its name to South Africa's Limpopo province with its
population of eight million. ''The majority of the people of Limpopo depend on groundwater. The river feeds the groundwater. When it is
dry, it affects the groundwater,'' said Classen. ''Groundwater is extremely important in Africa. It is estimated that more than 75
percent of the African population use groundwater as their main source of drinking water,'' said Nejjar in the paper he
presented at the conference. ''We used to have good rains but the rains are now disappearing. We should expect more droughts,''
Kevin Scott, a researcher at South Africa's Institute for Agricultural Engineering, told the conference. He is involved in research work in
Limpopo province. ''Rainfall is declining in the region. We have to work together and have a joint vision,'' he argued.
Environmentalists at the conference warned that most of the effects of climate change will be seen in or through water. The climate will
be characterized by greater variation and more intense, extreme water events. The Stern Review of 2006 placed the current global
temperature level, which is blamed for the melting of ice in the Arctic and the drought in southern Africa, at 0.6 degree centigrade. The
review investigated the economics of climate change and development and was produced by a committee chaired by Sir Nicholas Stern,
advisor to the British government. If the temperature rises to 4 degrees centigrade it will potentially cause a 30-50
percent decrease in water availability in some vulnerable regions such as southern Africa and Mediterranean,
said the report. If it reaches 5 degrees centigrade or more, rising sea levels will threaten major world cities, with devastating effects.
Part of the solution lies in collecting and harnessing rain water, according to Johnson Klu of the Mvula Trust. The trust has provided
750,000 South Africans with a basic level of water supply and over 500,000 with improved sanitation in the past five years in South

                                                                                                                                      - 35 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0


Researchers combine efforts to help people in Africa with the decrease of rainfall
Riordan 07 , Teresa ; DEAN'S STAFF: COMMUNICATIONS Princeton Senior Writer; April 23, 2007,Vol. 96, No. 24

Princeton NJ — When an interdisciplinary research team from Princeton        arrived in the savanna of central Kenya last
summer, they found that one region they were planning to study — Koija — had not received any rainfall for 18
months. “The smallest children were being fed gruel instead of milk because there was simply no milk to give them,” said Eva Kaye, a
graduate student in politics. The lack of water meant that there was little grassland upon which to graze the livestock
that provide milk and meat and are the primary form of sustenance in the region. Kaye is part of the Water in Africa
initiative funded by the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies (PIIRS), which promotes interdisciplinary programs of
global import. The Water in Africa initiative draws upon the expertise of researchers in the Department of Ecology
and Evolutionary Biology, the School of Engineering and Applied Science and the Department of Politics. “Water is what
organizes all the players on this landscape,” said Daniel Rubenstein, chair of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and
director of the Program in African Studies, who is the lead investigator on the project. “The challenge is to bring the three sciences
together so that they can generate insights that otherwise no one group would have had.” Field research for the Water in Africa
initiative is taking place in the Laikipia-Samburu region of central Kenya, where the Mpala Wildlife Foundation
is located. The purpose, Rubenstein said, is to better understand the interplay of vegetation, climate, wildlife, livestock
and humans on this remote section of the savanna so that the people who live there can develop an
environmentally friendly and economically sustainable plan for managing their land. “It is one of the very few
projects that looks at an arid region from an interdisciplinary perspective,” said John Githaiga Maina, an eco-hydrologist who is a
visiting researcher at Princeton this semester from the University of Nairobi and who is part of the Water in Africa team. “The project is
also unusual in that it is interdisciplinary from beginning to end. We consult with each other every step of the way.” As part of the
initiative, Rubenstein and Ignacio Rodriguez-Iturbe, the James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, are teaching a seminar this spring on water in Africa. The class of 12 includes graduate students and seniors
from disciplines across campus. Although the class focuses specifically on water in a very small region in Kenya, the work the students
are doing is widely applicable to many other regions. In a recent class, Daniel Stanton, a botany graduate student interested in a
specialized discipline known as fog eco-hydrology, brought up Atacama, a rainforest in Chile where there is no rainfall but the forest
thrives on moisture from fog. The class discussion also roamed to Niger (Rodriguez played a New York Times online video on the “re-
greening of Niger”), Mongolia (where excessive grazing has caused dust storms that blow across Beijing) and Palestine (where backyard
gardens play an important role in eco-hydrology). While the class meets every Tuesday evening in Eno Hall, the real classroom for some
of the seminar participants is the savanna itself. Over winter break, Alex Lester and Trenton Franz, graduate students in civil and
environmental engineering, joined Elizabeth King, a PIIRS postdoctoral fellow and semi-arid lands ecologist already in the field
establishing baseline vegetation patterns.

                                                                                                                                     - 36 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                                              A2- AFRICA SAYS NO

Surveys prove- Native Africans voice support for clean water policy
Lochery 07, Lochery, CARE Water Team Director, 2007
Peter, Beyond the Status Quo: Bringing Down Barriers to Water and Sanitation Provision in Africa through Implementation of the
Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act, Testimony before the US House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, May 16.

In needs assessments, when   poor people are surveyed, they consistently name lack of water among the main causes
of their poverty, and give it first priority in their visions of a better future. Where they have a voice, poor
people call on their governments to provide water and try to hold them accountable where possible when
services are not forthcoming. However, national governments frequently do not reflect this public priority in their policies, nor do
they provide adequate resources to make significant change. In countries where water has been given priority on the
national stage and adequate resources are provided to back it, greater improvements in the expansion of
service delivery have been seen. Political will and getting priorities straight are key ingredients in progress

                                                                                                                                 - 37 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                              A2- SPENDING (PLAN IS INEXPENSIVE)

Water sanitation would cost virtually nothing and the US would see a 4-to-1 return
through saving on health spending
Watkins 06, Watkins, director of the UN human development report office, 2006 (Kevin, We cannot tolerate children dying for a
glass of water, The Guardian, water/story/0,,1845428,00.html, Wednesday March 8)

   To add insult, the poor pay more for their water than the rich. In Kibera, you pay three times more than in Manhattan or
   London, and 10 times more than in high-income suburbs of Nairobi. Similar patterns are repeated across the cities of the developing
   world. The reason: water utilities pump subsidised water to well-off customers, but seldom reach the poor. Most slum dwellers
   face a choice between buying water from high-cost private traders, or taking a long trip to the nearest stream.
   Meeting the UN's millennium development goal of halving the proportion of the world without access to
   clean water would cost $4bn a year for 10 years. That amount represents just a month's spending on bottled
   mineral water in Europe and the US. For less than people in rich countries now spend on a designer product
   that produces no tangible health gains, we would roll back one of the main causes of preventable childhood
   death. And for every $1 invested, another $3-$4 would be generated through savings on health spending and
   increased productivity. So why have rich countries been cutting aid to water and sanitation for the last five years?

The United States’ financial assistance to the UN’s water millennium goal will be
repaid triple-fold
Tobin 05, 2005 (Vanessa J. Tobin, Chief of Water Environment Sanitation Section United Nations Children’s Fund, CQ
Congressional Testimony, June 29, 2005) p. Lexis

   The long-term cost to society of not meeting the MDG water and sanitation targets is several times greater
   than the cost of constructing the water and sanitation systems required. A recent comprehensive cost-benefit
   analysis study showed that the investment return - in measurable socioeconomic benefits - would be a minimum of
   three dollars on every dollar spent improving water and sanitation services. In some cases, the return would
   be as high as $34 for every dollar spent. WHO estimates that if everyone had access to basic water and sanitation services, the
   health sector would save more than US$11 billion in treatment costs, and people would gain 5.5 billion productive days each year
   due to reduced diarrheal disease.

                                                                                                                                 - 38 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                         A2- SPENDING (DEFICIT SPENDING GOOD 1/2)

Deficit spending is good for the economy.
Nugent 03, 3-4-03 executive VP & C.I.O. of PlanMember Advisors, Inc., and principal of Victoria Capital Management, Inc
(Thomas E. “The Budget Deficit/The Budget Surplus: The Real Story”

Newspapers are filled with warnings about the potential for growing budget deficits due to President Bush’s proposed fiscal stimulus
package. Two years ago, we were going to have surpluses as far as the eye could see—somewhere upwards of $2 trillion. Politicians
were ebullient over the likelihood that these record surpluses would allow them to save Social Security, increase spending on pet
projects, and give well-heeled constituents a nice fat tax cut. Now these same politicians are all stressed out over the forecasts of
ballooning federal deficits. The outlook has changed to burdening our children with the bill for our lifestyles and the fact that Social
Security will go broke. The government plays a critical role in influencing the economy especially when cyclical
factors knock a long-term trend off track. In such circumstances the federal government steps in and replaces some of the lost
demand that was coming from the private sector by greater spending. The U.S. dollar is not anchored to any particular commodity; the
government is free to net spend (spending in excess of revenues) as much money as necessary to keep the economy afloat. When
government “spends,” it introduces demand into the economy. For example, when the government orders a fleet
of aircraft, it pays for the aircraft with a check drawn on the U.S. government, and credits the appropriate bank
account when that check clears through the Fed. The federal government doesn’t need money to spend money.
There is only one way for our government to spend-- it credits an account for a member bank at the Fed. When
companies begin producing the planes and hiring the associated workers as a result of the government purchase, income and output goes
up. As a matter of accounting, it is the same money the government spends that, at the end of the day, purchases the government bonds
that are ultimately issued with the presumption of ‘financing’ the initial government spending. In other words, deficit spending creates
the new funds to buy the newly issued securities. The result is an increase in output as well as in increase in savings of
net financial assets (in the form of treasury securities) for the private sector. The government deficit has important
economic consequences, assuming there was excess capacity in the real economy. Economic activity increases; the government acquires
goods and services that are needed; unemployment declines; production goes up; the overall economy grows; and individuals and
companies savings increase in the form of the newly issued government bonds.

                                                                                                                                     - 39 -
Aditya Rudra
Water Aff 1.0

                          A2- SPENDING (DEFICIT SPENDING GOOD 2/2)

Spending prevents recessions from expanding
Investor Business Daily 07 (June 15, 2007, “Deficit Deceptions”,

The answer, in a word, is no. It's fashionable these days, for Democrats and even some Republicans to style themselves as "fiscal
conservative" to advocate the end of government red ink. Some of them mean well, to be sure. Certainly, no one wants to see a budget
deficit forever — or one that expands to a point that it impairs our government's ability to function. But we're so far from that right now
it's easy to think those who push for the immediate elimination of the deficit have another agenda entirely. Unfortunately, it's hard to
have a rational conversation about it. It never comes down to facts, of which there are plenty, but to fears, of which there are always
more. Let's start with facts. Last year, the deficit hit $248 billion. Sounds like a lot, but in a $13.6 trillion economy,
it's not. It's the equivalent of a $900 dollar credit card charge for someone with a $50,000 income. As a share of
GDP, the budget deficit last year was 1.9%. That's down from 3.6% in 2004 and below the long-term average of 2.5%. This
year, says the CBO, the deficit will be about $177 billion, or 1.3% of GDP . If current trends continue, the deficit will be
erased by 2010-2012 at the latest. By the way, those "surpluses" in the final years of the Clinton administration were a fluke. If
you don't believe it, go back and look at the Clinton administration's own forecasts. They never saw the surpluses or record tax revenues
coming. They were a creation of an unusually powerful upswing in the economy, pushed by a number of factors: Fed interest-rate cuts,
the advent of the Internet and the boom in Big Box discount retailers, such as Wal-Mart. It was a perfect storm of economic growth.
Those who accuse President Bush of "spending" the surpluses and creating "soaring" deficits miss the point.
Bush took office just as both the stock market and the Internet boom were collapsing, taking the economy with
it. As we've noted before, the stock market alone suffered losses of more than $7 trillion. The negative wealth effect from that hit alone
was enough to tank the economy. The year 2001 was one of both recession and a major terrorist attack on our nation, which killed 3,000
people and destroyed hundreds of billions of dollars in potential output. Let's go to logic 101: Given such a situation, what
should Congress and the president do? Sharply cut spending to ensure that the deficit remains small, and risk
sending the economy into a tailspin? Or keep spending, and maybe even increase it a bit, knowing full well that
any discretionary spending that was made today can be cut tomorrow? No, we don't like pork-barrel spending. Nor do we
like big government, an issue we've written much on in the past. That said, does the spending of the past six years really
constitute unusual "big government?" We would argue, no. Using the most meaningful measure of the size of
government — spending as a share of GDP — we see that in fact we're today right where we were in 1996 —
about 20.3% of GDP. And it's declining. This year, spending as a share of the economy is expected to fall to
19.9% of GDP. If you look at the chart, you'll note that's actually below the average of 20.7% of GDP since 1970. Spending boom?
Hardly. Then where did the deficits come from? As we noted, the economy's decline in 2001 had a far bigger fiscal impact than
first thought. Revenues in 2000 were 20.9% of GDP; by 2004, they had plunged to 16.3% of GDP, lowest since 1959. This year,
revenues returned to 18.6% of GDP, above the long-term average of 18.2%. So it was falling revenues, not higher spending,
that caused the deficit. It may well be that by keeping spending within its normal range as a share of the
economy, Bush kept a mild recession from becoming a very nasty one. For those who argue the deficit is such a bad thing
that we need to raise taxes to get rid of it, this too is wrong. As Nobel-winning economist Edward Prescott has noted,
workers are highly sensitive to tax rates. They work and earn more when rates fall, less when they rise. It's common sense. That was the
choice President Bush faced in 2001. Keep spending money during a time of extraordinary uncertainty, and cut taxes. Or do nothing or
even boost taxes and risk the consequences. Given the current five-year boom we're in, he chose wisely. As we noted before, an
extensive analysis by the Heritage Foundation found President Bush's tax cuts each year boost real GDP by $75 billion, employment by
709,000 and real personal income by $200 billion. The benefits are huge and ongoing. Are we Pollyannas about deficits? Not at all. Long
term, we agree there's a problem. It's a result of entitlement spending. If we don't control that, we're in big trouble. In just the next 10
years, Medicare and Social Security costs will jump from 8.5% of GDP to 10.7%, as 76 million baby boomers start to retire. We have to
fix that — something, by the way, Bush tried to do but got little help. Still, we've had deficits in 24 of the past 27 years. During that time,
real GDP has grown 122% to $11.5 trillion, 46 million new jobs have been created, bank interest rates have fallen from almost 20% to
about 8%, 42 million new homes have been built and per capita incomes have almost tripled. In short, none of the dire things predicted
about deficits came to pass. We're the wealthiest country in history, and we're putting more distance between us and our nearest
competitors each day.

                                                                                                                                         - 40 -

To top