Ac version 3 Observation 1: sq 4

Topicality Stuff

Topicality EE = Aid

Financial aid is EE

Derrick 98

(Robert, Lieutenant Colonel US Army, “ENGAGEMENT: THE NATIONS PREMIER GRAND STRATEGY, WHO'S IN CHARGE?,” 1998, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA342695)

Economic engagement covers a wide range of programs. Financial incentives are an effective engagement tool since countries usually interact with the US when money is involved. Whether it is obtaining funding for a national program; acquiring materiel, food or medicine; or maintaining Most Favored Nation 12Status, financial aide has always been a preferred way for the US to affect the behavior of others. Diplomatic engagement ranges from recognition of sovereign states and foreign governments, to presidential visits, to all aspects of the embassy itself. The mere existence of an embassy is an engagement tool. Through official diplomatic ceremonies, informal meetings, and embassy employees living among the locals, the Department of State's presence is engagement in and of itself. Similarly, "...overseas...forces embody global military engagement. They serve as role models for militaries in emerging democracies; contribute uniquely to the stability, continuity, and flexibility that protects US interests; and are crucial to continued democratic and economic development."14 In addition to our presence overseas, our military engagement consists of a variety of military to military and political to military events. U.S. and host nation defense forces conduct combined exercises to improve cooperation and strengthen ties. Much of the peacetime efforts of the DOS and DOD are engagement. This is in the form of forward presence, regional exercises, and infrastructure construction projects. The engagement tools of three of our five instruments of our National Power: Military, Economic and Political, (Geographical and National Will being the other two), listed below in Figure 3, are a few examples of how the US uses these powers to stay engaged. Military Diplomatic Economic CJCS Exercises State Recognition Agcy for Intl Devi Depl for Trng (DFT) Presidential Visits Econ Spt Fund (ESF) Intl Mil Ed & Tr (IMET) Demarshe Fgn Mil Sales (FMS) Counterdrug Spt (CD) Treaties & Health Aid Mobile Tr Teams (MTT) Agreements

Most limiting interpretation still includes foreign aid and grants

Resnick 2k1

(Evan, Assistant Professor and coordinator of the United States Programme at RSIS, “Defining Engagement,” Journal of International Affairs, 0022197X, Spring2001, Vol. 54, Issue 2, http://web.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ehost/detail?sid=1b56e6b4-ade2-4052-9114-7d107fdbd019%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=4437301)

A REFINED DEFINITION OF ENGAGEMENT In order to establish a more effective framework for dealing with unsavory regimes, I propose that we define engagement as the attempt to influence the political behavior of a target state through the comprehensive establishment and enhancement of contacts with that state across multiple issue-areas (i.e. diplomatic, military, economic, cultural). The following is a brief list of the specific forms that such contacts might include: DIPLOMATIC CONTACTS •Extension of diplomatic recognition; normalization of diplomatic relations •Promotion of target-state membership in international institutions and regimes •Summit meetings and other visits by the head of state and other senior government officials of sender state to target state and vice-versa MILITARY CONTACTS •Visits of senior military officials of the sender state to the target state and vice-versa •Arms transfers •Military aid and cooperation •Military exchange and training programs •Confidence and security-building measures •Intelligence sharing ECONOMIC CONTACTS •Trade agreements and promotion •Foreign economic and humanitarian aid in the form of loans and/or grants CULTURAL CONTACTS •Cultural treaties •Inauguration of travel and tourism links •Sport, artistic and academic exchanges(n25)

And, EE is more than just trade – includes Aid

Milner and Tingley 2k11

[1/1/11, Helen V. Milner is the B.C. Forbes Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and the director of the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and Dustin H. Tingley is an Associate Professor of Government at Harvard University. He received a PhD in Politics from Princeton in 2010 and BA from the University of Rochester in 2001.“Who Supports Global Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic Policy,” http://www.princeton.edu/~hmilner/forthcoming%20papers/MilnerTingley%20(2011)%20Who%20Supports%20Global%20Economic%20Engagement.pdf]

We find strong support for political economy ~Stolper-Samuelson! theories in both trade and aid policy+ A central core of support for international engagement in trade and aid lies in the constituencies that gain economically from trade and aid+ 26 Surprisingly, political economy preferences affect legislative voting in aid as much as they do in trade and in the same way+ This lends support to the idea of a single coalition supporting international economic engagement and to the claim of foreign policy substitutability+ Differences do exist, however, in the domestic bases of support for trade and aid policies+ First, foreign policy pressures as reflected through the president’s endorsement of foreign policy legislation are far more apparent in congressional voting on trade than in aid+ Second, liberals and left-leaning constituencies are more favorable to aid than trade, while conservative legislators prefer trade to aid+ This ideological divide looms larger in aid than trade+ These differences have implications for the theory of foreign policy substitutability and claims about the internationalist coalition+ Our research thus shows the need to incorporate both political economy models and foreign policy theories to understand American foreign policy

Topicality – Expertise & Know How

And, expertise and know-how are part of assistance programs

Tarnoff and Knowles 2k4

(Curt Tarnoff Specialist in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense Larry Nowels Specialist in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense “Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy,” pg online @ http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-916.pdf //um-ef)

What are the different forms in which assistance is provided? Most U.S. assistance is now provided as a grant (gift) rather than a loan (see the next question for further discussion). But the forms a grant may take on its way to the recipient country are diverse. Cash transfers. Although it is the exception rather than the rule, some countries receive aid in the form of a cash grant to the government. Dollars provided in this way support a government’s balance-of-payments situation, enabling it to purchase more U.S. goods, service its debt, or devote more domestic revenues to developmental or other purposes. Cash transfers have been made as a reward to countries that have supported the United States in its war on terrorism (Turkey and Jordan in FY2004), to provide political and strategic support (both Egypt and Israel annually since 1979), and in exchange for undertaking difficult political and economic reforms (multiple African countries since the 1980s, including Ghana, Mozambique, and Zambia in FY2004). Of FY2004 appropriations, about $855 million will be provided as cash transfers.CRS-24 Commodity import programs (CIP). The Commodity Import Program managed by USAID allows indigenous private sector business in a foreign country to gain access to U.S. dollars in order to import eligible American goods. In exchange for the dollars, local currency paid by these businesses goes to a host government account and is then programmed for development purposes by both the host country and the United States. The program, used widely in the past, is currently administered solely in Egypt and valued at $200 million in FY2004. Equipment and commodities. Assistance may be provided in the form of food commodities, weapons systems, or equipment such as generators or computers. Food aid may be provided directly to meet humanitarian needs or to encourage attendance at a maternal/child health care program. Weapons supplied under the military assistance program may include training in their use. Equipment and commodities provided under development assistance are usually integrated with other forms of aid to meet objectives in a particular social or economic sector. For instance, textbooks have been provided in both Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a broader effort to reform the educational sector and train teachers. Computers may be offered in conjunction with training and expertise to fledgling microcredit institutions. Training. Transfer of know-how is a significant part of most assistance programs. The International Military and Educational Training Program (IMET) provides training to officers of the military forces of allied and friendly nations. Tens of thousands of citizens of aid recipient countries receive short-term technical training or longer term degree training annually under USAID’s participant training program. More than one-third of Peace Corps volunteers are English, math, and science teachers. Other programs provide law enforcement personnel with antinarcotics or anti-terrorism training. Expertise. Many assistance programs provide expert advice to government and private sector organizations. The Treasury Department, USAID, and U.S.- funded multilateral banks all place specialists in host government ministries to make recommendations on policy reforms in a wide variety of sectors. USAID has often placed experts in private sector business and civic organizations to help strengthen them in their formative years or while indigenous staff are being trained. While most of these experts are U.S. nationals, in Russia, USAID has funded the development of locally-staffed political and economic think tanks to offer policy options to that government. Small grants. USAID, the Inter-American Foundation, and the African Development Foundation often provide aid in the form of grants that may then be used by U.S. or indigenous organizations to further their varied developmental purposes. For instance, grants are sometimes provided to microcredit organizations which in turn provide loans to microentrepreneurs. Through the USAID-funded Eurasia Foundation, grants are provided to help strengthen the role of former Soviet Union non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in democratization and private enterprise development.

Topicality – Gov-Gov

And, the plan is Government-to-Government and

Miotke 2k8

(Jeff Miotke Deputy Assistant Secretary, Science, Space, and Health U.S. Department of State, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/8, “International Science And Technology Cooperation,” pg lexis//um-ef)

The role of the DOS in international S&T collaboration is to advance the objectives of the USG, the academic community, and U.S. commercial interests. The State Department's power rests in its ability to lay the appropriate ground rules for engagement at the government-to-government and international level, to serve as a catalyst, and to use its convening authority effectively. In its role as "chair" for USG international science engagement, OES convenes USG interagency working groups on S&T cooperation with specific countries. These groups are composed of representatives from over 20 USG agencies that have on-going, past or planned activities in those countries. Most interagency meetings are discretionary and called when S&T policy coordination is necessary. There are several every week over the course of the year.

And, USAID programs are administered Gov-Gov

Ernst and Young Global 2k12

(“USAID improves government transactions,” pg online @ http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Industries/Government---Public-Sector/Dynamics---May-2012---USAID-improves-government-transactions //um-ef)

As USAID undergoes reforms, senior officials David Ostermeyer and Thomas Briggs, talk about their priorities for the future of the US agency deploying international assistance. Since its creation in 1961, USAID has been the principal US agency deploying assistance to countries that are recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty and engaging in democratic reforms. Now, the agency is embarking on an extensive internal reform program that aims to change the way it does its business. The reforms, entitled USAID FORWARD, emphasize new partnerships, greater innovation and a stronger focus on results. “What we’re trying to do is to get back to government-to-government transactions because we think that it’s the best way to manage a sustainable development program, and enable us to walk away from a program,” says the agency’s Chief Financial Officer, David Ostermeyer.

Topicality – Gov-Gov

Plan is direct gov to gov interaction (only if NSF is the acting body in the USFG)

Bement 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress, Director of NSF, member of US National Commission for UNESCO (Arden, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH

NSF leadership also represents the U.S. government on the International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research, and through multiple roles in the activities of OECD's Global Science Forum. For example, NSF has recently been involved in hosting workshops on the science of science policy and biocomplexity, and the agency plays a major role in the coordination of the U.S. role in large facilities. NSF also plays significant roles in the consultative meetings of the Antarctic Treaty, in the scientific activities of other United Nations specialized agencies, such as the World Meteorological Organization, and in the activities of the Arctic Council, where we represent the scientific interest of all the Arctic nations. Through these activities, NSF leadership interacts directly with heads of state, ministers, and other principals to discuss forming new multilateral and bilateral agreements, or to alter or extend already existing agreements. Such leadership roles play a critical role in keeping the Nation proactively involved in the international S&T arena.

Topicality – Assistance

Science cooperation includes engagement through assistance

Miotke 2k8

(Jeff Miotke Deputy Assistant Secretary, Science, Space, and Health U.S. Department of State, CQ Congressional Testimony, 4/8, “International Science And Technology Cooperation,” pg lexis//um-ef)

We are proud of the work we are doing to strengthen our S&T ties with other nations. Nonetheless, there is a lot more that could be done to further harness the soft power of S&T. Last month, the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Transformational Diplomacy recommended that the DOS "expand its investment in Science, Engineering, and Technology expertise, presence, and global engagement. This includes expanding the Department's engagement in global science, engineering, and technology networks through exchanges, assistance, and joint research activities addressing key issues." I look forward to hearing from the Committee how we might work together to broaden our international cooperation on science and technology.

And, the government measures Economic Engagement to developing countries by totaling Development Aid – the plan is the ONLY mechanism that is topical

Dr. Adelman 2k5

(Carol C. Adelman, Dr. P.H., Director, Center for Science in Public Policy Jeremiah Norris, Senior Fellow Jean Weicher, Research Associate, “America’s Total Economic Engagement with the Developing World: Rethinking the Uses and Nature of Foreign Aid. The Hudson Institute)
America’s Total Economic Engagement with the Developing World: Rethinking the Uses and Nature of Foreign Aid Foreign aid is back on the front burner of U.S. foreign policy. After World War II U.S. government dollars helped rebuild Europe and Asia and contain Soviet influence. Next, after the collapse of communism, aid helped newly democratic states recover from the miseries of central planning. In his first term, President Bush increased the U.S. Government aid budget by 50 percent, the largest increase since the Marshall Plan in 1948. Moreover, the way aid is distributed has been reinvented by the Bush administration to promote effective giving through the new Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC).1 U.S. aid, at $16.3 billion per year in 2003, now dwarfs other developed countries, with Japan coming in a distant second at $8.8 billion. Despite this U.S. Government generosity and creative thinking about foreign aid, claims that America is “stingy” still abound. Economist Jeffrey Sachs, joined by a chorus that includes the New York Times editorial page, European governments and the UN, all believe that U.S. Government aid is inadequate. By doubling foreign aid to Africa in particular, as Sachs and the report on Africa commissioned by British Prime Minister Tony Blair recommend, donor countries, it is claimed, will finally be able to lift Africa out of its downward economic spiral. The criticism of American generosity comes from the much-quoted statistic that U.S. Government foreign aid ranks last among developed countries as a percentage of gross national income (GNI). This annoys Americans as we tend to think of ourselves as a generous people. We invest the most overseas, provide the most militarily for global disasters and security, produce the bulk of the world’s research and development for better food and medicines, and provide preferential trade agreements that support imports from developing countries. So, why should America, the richest nation in the world, not be more caring with its government foreign aid? The simple answer is: We are. The standard measure of foreign aid used to compare us to other donors, produced by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), is incomplete and misleading. It excludes America’s private international assistance. Conservative estimates indicate private international assistance, which is growing significantly every year, is over three and one-half times greater than U.S. government aid. Americans help people abroad the same way they help people at home — through private foundations, corporate giving, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations, and money sent back home to needy relatives. In 2003 this private philanthropy came to at least $62.1 billion compared to $16.3 billion of U.S. Government aid, or what is called Official Development Assistance (ODA). This White Paper updates the private international giving numbers that were produced by the Hudson Institute for the U.S. Agency for International Development report, Foreign Aid in the National Interest, for 2000.2 The new numbers for 2003, the last year for which data are available, are significantly higher than 2000 and reflect a continued growth in private giving as well as increased interest and attention to better measurement of U.S. global philanthropy. For its part, the Hudson Institute is developing a new Index of Global Philanthropy that will document U.S. private giving and begin collecting these numbers from European and other donor countries. U.S. Government and Private International Assistance to Developing Countries Based on new research and new data sources, the Hudson Institute has developed a considerably higher figure for 2003 U.S. private international assistance than the year 2000. The following table, using the latest official government figures as well, shows total U.S. economic engagement with developing countries. This engagement includes our government foreign aid or ODA, our private assistance or philanthropy, and our private capital flows or private investment overseas. The table illustrates the small role that ODA plays in America’s economic engagement with the developing world. Over 85 percent of that engagement is through the private sector, in either philanthropy or private investment. Presenting this full picture, not just a limited government foreign aid number, is a more accurate way of measuring American generosity and impact in the world than the current system developed under the OECD. Estimated U.S. Total Economic Engagement with Developing Countries in 2003 $US Billions % of Total U.S. Official Development Assistance 16.3 13 U.S. Other Country Assistance 1.5 1 U.S. Private Assistance 62.1 47 Foundations 3.3 Corporations 2.7 Non Profits and Volunteerism 6.2 Universities & Colleges 2.3 Religious Organizations 7.5 Individual Remittances 40.1 U.S. Private Capital Flows 51.0 39 U.S. Total Economic Engagement 130.9 100 U.S. Official Development Assistance This number of $16.3 billion represents what the OECD allows the U.S. Government to count as Official Development Assistance (ODA). This is the so called “donor performance” number that is compared to other countries. It includes the budget of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Peace Corps, contributions to the World Bank and other multilateral agencies, some State Department refugee and humanitarian programs and some Department of Defense humanitarian functions. Not allowed, and thus not counted in this number, are significant DOD peacekeeping and security efforts.

Topicality – On-Going

S&T Cooperation agreements are on-going – not just a single action

Dolan 2k12

(Bridget M. Dolan, “Science and Technology Agreements as Tools for Science Diplomacy: A

U.S. Case Study,” Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 4 (December 2012), pg online @ http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/files/science_and_technology_agreements_as_tools_for_science_diplomacy_science__diplomacy.pdf //um-ef)

As this paper has elaborated, U.S. decisions to enter into S&T agreements are often motivated by the desire to transform a diplomatic relationship, promote public diplomacy, enhance a diplomatic visit, and/or advance U.S. national security. An S&T agreement can be a limited one-time deliverable or it can be a launching pad for extensive engagement. While the discussions above have focused on drivers for S&T agreements from the U.S. perspective, for these agreements to be effective tools of science diplomacy, implementation matters. In the last decade, the number of S&T agreements involving the United States has doubled. At the same time allocation of U.S. federal resources to designated international programs that support engagement in science and technology has not kept pace.11 Some science diplomacy practitioners and academics in the United States and abroad are concerned that an S&T agreement with the United States, while once considered an important tool, is no longer taken seriously.12 As these types of formal intergovernmental agreements continue to expand, however, the long-term benefit to official and nongovernmental relations between countries depends upon the ability to foster substantial scientific cooperation. It is essential that these agreements and science diplomacy more generally—while cognizant of the realities of limited resources—are ambitious enough to foster meaningful international partnerships.