Feb2019pf PDF

Copyright 2019 by Champion Briefs, LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by an information storage or retrieval system, without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.
The Evidence Standard February 2019
The Evidence Standard
Speech and Debate provides a meaningful and educational experience to all who are involved. We,
as educators in the community, believe that it is our responsibility to provide resources that
uphold the foundation of the Speech and Debate activity. Champion Briefs, its employees,
managers, and associates take an oath to uphold the following Evidence Standard:
1. We will never falsify facts, opinions, dissents, or any other information.
2. We will never knowingly distribute information that has been proven to be inaccurate, even if
the source of the information is legitimate.
3. We will actively fight the dissemination of false information and will provide the community
with clarity if we learn that a third-party has attempted to commit deception.
4. We will never support or distribute studies, news articles, or other materials that use
inaccurate methodologies to reach a conclusion or prove a point.
5. We will provide meaningful clarification to any who question the legitimacy of information
distributed by ourselves or by any third-party.
6. We will actively contribute to students’ understanding of the world by using evidence from a
multitude of perspectives and schools of thought.
7. We will, within our power, assist the community as a whole in its mission to achieve the goals
and vision of this activity.
These seven statements, while simple, represent the complex notion of what it means to
advance students’ understanding of the world around them, as is the purpose of educators.
Champion Briefs 4
Letter from the Editor February 2019

Letter from the Editor
The February resolution for Public Forum debate is “Resolved: The United States should
end its arms sales to Saudi Arabia.”
The 2017 arms deal with Saudi Arabia was a crucial step in the relationship between the
United States and one of its closest allies in the middle east. For decades, the United States has
served as one of Saudi Arabia’s primary providers of weapons in an attempt to provide them
with the military force to secure the region and curry their favor. However, in the aftermath of
the murder of American journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and other problematic actions on the part
of Saudi Arabia, the arms deal has once again made its way into the public eye. Many
Americans are asking whether the United States can justify continued relations with a country
that called for the execution of a Washington Post journalist.
This topic will be a great chance to explore the history of America’s relationship with
Saudi Arabia and the implications of our continued arms trade. Additionally, this will be an
excellent chance to read about and discuss the causes and effects of the famine in Yemen,
Saudi Arabia’s proxy war with Iran, and other destabilizing factors in the Middle East.
At Champion Briefs, we’re very excited to publish this brief, as we’ve put extra time and
care into this brief knowing how important this topic is for many PF debaters. As always, I urge
you to go beyond our brief as well, as the best way to improve on a topic is to learn as much as
possible about the subject area.
Best of luck this month, we’ll be rooting for you!
Michael Norton
Editor-in-Chief
Champion Briefs 5
Table of Contents February 2019
Table of Contents
The Evidence Standard .......................................................................................4

Letter from the Editor .........................................................................................5

Table of Contents ...............................................................................................6

Topic Analyses ....................................................................................................8
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda ......................................................................................................................... 9
Topic Analysis by Belén Mella ..................................................................................................................... 18
Topic Analysis by Zachary Ginsberg ......................................................................................................... 25

General Information ......................................................................................... 33

Pro Arguments with Con Responses ................................................................. 44
PRO: The US should halt arms sales as it is facing pressure from its allies to do so ............ 45
A/2: The US should halt arms sales as it is facing pressure from its allies to do so ......... 49
PRO: Saudi attacks damage Yemeni long term development ........................................................ 53
A/2: Saudi attacks damage Yemeni long term development ..................................................... 57
PRO: Saudi airstrikes worsen the famine in Yemen ........................................................................... 60
A/2: Saudi airstrikes worsen the famine in Yemen ....................................................................... 64
PRO: Propping up Saudi Arabia is bad for the environment .......................................................... 68
A/2: Propping up Saudi Arabia is bad for the environment ....................................................... 72
PRO: Ending arms sales will help end the war in Yemen ................................................................. 76
A/2: Ending arms sales will help end the war in Yemen ............................................................. 80
PRO: Saudi Arabia uses these arms to kill innocent civilians ........................................................ 84
A/2: Saudi Arabia uses these arms to kill innocent civilians ..................................................... 88
PRO: Arms sales make US complicit in war crimes ............................................................................ 92
A/2: Arms sales make US complicit in war crimes ......................................................................... 96
PRO: Arms sales create a risk of an arms race ...................................................................................... 99
A/2: Arms sales create a risk of an arms race ............................................................................... 103
PRO: Arms sales weaken Saudi Arabian governance ..................................................................... 106
A/2: Arms sales weaken Saudi Arabian governance .................................................................. 110
PRO: Arms Sales Embolden Saudi Arabia ............................................................................................ 112
A/2: Arms Sales Embolden Saudi Arabia ......................................................................................... 116
PRO: Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia weaken US soft power .............................................................. 119
A/2: Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia weaken US soft power .......................................................... 123
PRO: The US should end its arms sales because of Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen ....... 127
A/2: The US should end its arms sales because of Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen ... 131
PRO: The US should halt arms due to the UN Arms Treaty .......................................................... 134
A/2: The US should halt arms due to the UN Arms Treaty ...................................................... 137
Champion Briefs 6
Table of Contents February 2019
PRO: The United States should halt arms sales to punish Saudi Arabia for the
assassination of Jamal Khashoggi ............................................................................................................ 141
A/2: The United States should halt arms sales to punish Saudi Arabia for the
assassination of Jamal Khashoggi ............................................................................................................ 145
PRO: Saudi Arabia needs to be punished for their many human rights abuses .................. 148
A/2: Saudi Arabia needs to be punished for their many human rights abuses .............. 152

Con Arguments with Pro Responses ............................................................... 156
CON: Saudi Arabia checks Iranian Aggression .................................................................................. 157
A/2: Saudi Arabia checks Iranian Aggression ............................................................................... 160
CON: Saudi Arabia invests in American infrastructure ................................................................. 163
A/2: Saudi Arabia invests in American infrastructure .............................................................. 165
CON: Saudi Arabia will look to other trading partners .................................................................. 167
A/2: Saudi Arabia will look to other trading partners ............................................................... 171
CON: Saudi Arabia will cease reforms. .................................................................................................. 173
A/2: Saudi Arabia will cease reforms. ............................................................................................... 176
CON: Arms deals allow for U.S. dominance in weapons trade .................................................... 178
A/2: Arms deals allow for U.S. dominance in weapons trade ................................................. 181
CON: Cutting arms would lead to Saudi oil retaliation ................................................................. 183
A/2: Cutting arms would lead to Saudi oil retaliation ............................................................... 186
CON: Ending Saudi Sales risks crippling US-Saudi Alliance ......................................................... 189
A/2: Ending Saudi Sales risks crippling US-Saudi Alliance ...................................................... 192
CON: Sales help Saudi fight ISIS ............................................................................................................... 195
A/2: Sales help Saudi fight ISIS ............................................................................................................ 198
CON: Arms sales help us balance the trade deficit ........................................................................... 201
A/2: Arms sales help us balance the trade deficit ........................................................................ 204
CON: Ending Arms sales incentivizes a Chinese Pivot ................................................................... 207
A/2: Ending Arms sales incentivizes a Chinese Pivot ................................................................ 211
CON: THAAD exports key to prevent Iran attack ............................................................................. 214
A/2: THAAD exports key to prevent Iran attack .......................................................................... 216
CON: Other European Countries would pick up the slack ............................................................ 219
A/2: Other European Countries would pick up the slack ......................................................... 223
CON: Foreign Arms sales are a critical foreign policy tool ........................................................... 226
A/2: Foreign Arms sales are a critical foreign policy tool ........................................................ 231
CON: Saudi Arabia will just buy arms from Russia .......................................................................... 234
A/2: Saudi Arabia will just buy arms from Russia ....................................................................... 238
CON: Stopping sales will hurt Saudi domestic reforms ................................................................. 241
A/2: Stopping sales will hurt Saudi domestic reforms .............................................................. 245
Champion Briefs 7
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda February 2019
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda
Resolved: The United States should end its arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
Introduction
It is difficult to imagine a topic more ripped from the headlines than arms sales to Saudi
Arabia. The February resolution intersects a number of hot button public policy issues: US
military doctrine, free speech and journalism, human rights, and geopolitics. Each of these
independently would be an interesting topic, together they ensure that debates will include
ample clash and many different arguments. This topic is broad enough to ensure that strategies
will have to be varied from round to round, but narrow enough that teams will be able to dive
deep into specific avenues of argumentation.
The February topics will reward debaters who understand their own arguments in the
context of their opponents’. This is because this resolution looks at a relatively stable and
simple independent variable (whether or not the US sells arms to Saudi Arabia). The trick then
will be to understand the full range of opposing claims and how they interact with a given
argument. This can be difficult; the resolution is a very deep dive into a specific policy. As a
result, most arguments will interact with each other, and there will be comparatively fewer
points which do not clash. The key to winning in February will be to identify how these
arguments clash and exploit those circumstances. Smart teams will be able to de-link their
Champion Briefs 9
opponents starting from the constructive speeches. February promises to be a month full of
intricate debates.
Tournament Considerations
February is one of the most intense months in PF competition. There are several large
tournaments, especially during the second half of the month, but this topic analysis will focus
on Harvard.
Harvard is possibly the most prestigious tournament of the year. Hundreds of teams
from all around the country attend, and the winners are lauded as the best that the circuit has
to offer. The timing of the tournament also gives teams ample time to prepare earlier in the
month in anticipation for Harvard. This means that debaters should expect that all of their
opponents are well prepped and understand the basic arguments on the topic. Many teams will
compete intensely the first few weeks of the month for the explicit purpose of collecting
information and practice for Harvard. Because of the prestige attached to the tournament,
teams are often operating at their best.
The judging pool at Harvard is unusual. It is difficult to make any blanket statements
about prelims, because the pool is so large. Because of the massive amount of entries, it is
impossible to generalize about the judges, who run the gamut from first time parents to
experienced coaches. This means that running overly technical, niche, inaccessible cases in
Champion Briefs 10
prelims is almost certainly a mistake. However, this changes dramatically in elimination rounds.
The judges in later rounds are some of the best that the debate community has to offer. It is
very common for teams that preform well in prelims to fail early on in elims because they
forget to adapt to the new set of judges in front of them. It is a good idea for teams to practice
in front of a diverse set of judges, and to have new arguments which they can swap out
depending on the technical proficiency of the judges in the room. Remember that people are
heterogeneous, and one of the most important parts of debate is being able to forge a
connection with the judge.
Strategy Considerations
Before getting into specific arguments, it is important to go over some of the
fundamentals of policy analysis. The crucial thing to keep in mind when looking at a large
international policy such as the one being discussed in the topic is that every decision must be
made in the context of its alternatives. Where large actors such as the US and Saudi Arabia are
concerned, decisions have many ripple effects which can reinforce or undermine the intended
effects of the policy. Similarly, the policies should be thought of in light of similar measures
which could be undertaken to achieve the same results. If a policy is inefficient or imposes high
costs compared to the alternatives, it should not be adopted.
First, it is important to think about the incentives at play for Saudi Arabia. This is
because almost every pro team will be running an argument that posits withdrawing military
Champion Briefs 11
sales will cause a change in behavior on the part of the Saudi government. For this to be true,
there must be a substantial incentive tied to military aid that would cause the Saudi
government to alter its sovereign policy. Let’s take the civil war in Yemen as an example.
Clearly, the Saudi regime is highly motivated and invested in continuing the conflict: despite a
multi-billion-dollar price tag, massive international outcry, and few visible results, the Saudi
coalition has kept up its war. The pro team must then show how America withdrawing arms
sales would change this decision-making calculus. To do so, pro teams must highlight the
specific ways in which weapons sales are different than the current costs imposed on Saudi
Arabia for the war on Yemen. Likewise, the negative must illustrate how the incentives the
affirmative discusses are either not powerful, or how there are countervailing incentives at play
which might cause the Saudis to behave differently. This will be the primary strategy for the
February topic: in many rounds, the affirmative and negative will agree on most of the link-level
debate (the nature of the war in Yemen, the volume of arms sold to Saudi Arabia, etc). The
difference lies in a team’s ability to articulate why these incentives matter.
On the other hand, teams should understand the various interests that America has in
the Middle East. In the context of the topic, because of the War on Yemen, it is likely that
human rights promotion will be a prominent impact. Being able to articulate how this impact
interacts with other American priorities will be an important part of every round. Even teams
which argue exclusively about human rights promotion should familiarize themselves with
other arguments. This is because there are many routes to link into human rights. Stopping
Saudi bombing is one such route, but so is regional stability, political reform, and even
Champion Briefs 12
economic development. It would be a mistake to be so taken with a single vision of foreign
policy that we forget how complicated and intricate the world can be.
The second thing to keep in mind is the relevant alternatives to cutting off arms sales.
What other policies are being discussed, how likely is action to be taken in the status quo?
Congress is actively debating measures to punish Saudi Arabia right now. The negative should
be able to explain why these measures are sufficient for the purposes of American interests in
the region, while the affirmative needs to show why they are not enough. Being able to
differentiate the marginal impact that weapons sales have on top of actions which the
international community is already taking is a necessary prerequisite to generating offense for
either team.
Affirmative Argumentation
There are two general impacts that affirmative teams should think about when first
approaching the topic: Stopping violence in Yemen and broader political reform in Saudi Arabia.
The first argument has to do with preventing the ongoing civil war from continuing, or at least
deescalating it, which would arguably save hundreds of thousands of lives. The second has to
do with reshaping Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy outlook and reigning it in more broadly. These
arguments stem from actions such as the Saudi financing for radical Wahhabi clerics who have
been linked to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as well as the recent murder of journalist
Champion Briefs 13
Jamal Khashoggi. Both arguments rely on weapons sales being crucially important to the Saudi
royal family, but in distinct ways.
The first argument deals with stopping bloodshed in Yemen. This argument contends
that the Saudi government is so reliant on American weapons that the threat of withdrawal
would force them to change their foreign policy. The trick to convincingly winning this
argument is to articulate why these weapons are so important for the campaign in Yemen. One
avenue is to simply argue that the weapons we sell Saudi Arabia directly increase the number of
civilian casualties because American weapons are especially deadly. Basically, if we stop selling
the Saudis our bombs, they will not be able to bomb as many cities. This argument is a fairly
intuitive link into saving lives, but is not a long-term political solution to the conflict. The other
warrant is that the cost of buying weapons elsewhere would be prohibitively expensive for the
Saudi Royal family. This is because weapons systems are built to be ‘interoperable’, that is to
say, compatible with other weapons produced by the same country. For instance, American
planes feed data into American radar systems. Changing one part of the equation would be
incredibly costly because it would require changes to other parts of the Saudi military
inventory. This could theoretically add up to a massive amount of money that might make
military adventurism in Yemen not worthwhile for the Saudi government.
The other argument worth considering is that halting weapons sales might force the
Saudis to reconsider their generally provocative foreign policy. The Saudis sponsor religious
extremism by enshrining the controversial doctrine of Wahhabism in civic life, exploit migrant
labor, and kill journalists abroad.
Champion Briefs 14
The affirmative could argue that the Saudi regime carries out this type of behavior
because it feels like it can get away with it. So far, Saudi actions have met with little resistance,
the international community has done little more than condemn Saudi Arabia. This has led to a
climate where Saudi officials act with impunity, pursuing whatever volition they might have
even when it flies in the face of accepted international law and norms.
Stopping arms sales would send a signal to Saudi Arabia that America’s patience is
wearing thin. The signal would illustrate that unless Saudi Arabia changes its behavior, it stands
to permanently lose its most important ally. Surely, Saudi Arabia places greater value on its
relationship with the United States than on the reckless behavior it has been conducting
abroad. Smart Affirmative teams will make the argument that Saudi Arabia only carries out
these reckless actions because it does not see consequences for doing so. When punished, they
will reform.
Negative Argumentation
The affirmative impacts of massive human rights violations are unlikely to be
outweighed by whatever geopolitical arguments a negative team can come up with – nor
should they be. Instead, negative teams should make big picture arguments about how
stopping arms sales would actually undermine the affirmative advocacy. This could be by
hurting the current Saudi regime and/or pushing it towards Russia.
The argument is that stopping weapons sales will only embitter the Saudis, who will see
it as a betrayal. Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago writes that 95 percent of the
Champion Briefs 15
time, sanctions do not achieve their desired effect. Worse, they are often counterproductive,
by empowering xenophobic elites within the target regime. Halting weapons sales would send a
strong message to Saudi Arabia that the US is not interested in a serious partnership, and that
our interests are incompatible with theirs. This might see an increase in bombing in Yemen,
because the Saudis feel even more insecure. Remember, the Saudi rationale for attacking
Yemen is that the government is friendly with Iran. If Saudi Arabia is so concerned about Iranian
power right now, imagine how paranoid they would be if they could no longer count on
American support. Punishing our allies is unlikely to make them friendlier to us, and might
reduce the influence that Washington has with which to bring the Saudis to the negotiating
table.
The second warrant worth considering is that the Saudis could just buy weapons from
other countries. If America will not sell weapons, the Russians surely will. It is possible that
these weapons will cost substantially more than the ones which Saudi Arabia currently buys,
but it is also possible that they do not. Russia is known to cut lucrative arms deals to countries
in order to secure more geopolitical influence. For Moscow, a Saudi arms deal would be a coup.
It would give the Kremlin a major partner in the Middle East, and substantially hurt the
American position. As such, Russian weapons might actually be quite affordable. It is also
unclear exactly how much of Saudi Arabia’s inventory would need to be replaced. Some Russian
weapons are compatible with American ones, and the Saudi royal family would take every step
necessary to secure the armaments it needs. The US banned the selling of weapons to China in
Champion Briefs 16
the 1990s after human rights violations but China managed to still import and develop enough
armaments to make them an incredibly powerful military.
This argument is strategic because it de-links the affirmative. If Saudi Arabia simply buys
weapons from other countries, the US cannot stop them from attacking Yemen or exercising a
bellicose foreign policy. Things might actually get worse, because Russia cares far less about
human rights than the United States. Russia would not even exert the limited force that
Washington is currently using against Saudi Arabia. A world where the Saudis got their weapons
from Russia would likely see more bombings and deadlier weapons.
This topic promises to be very interesting. Good luck!
About Jakob Urda
Jakob grew up in Brooklyn, New York. He attends the University of Chicago where he
hopes to receive a BA in Political Science in 2019, and is interested in security studies and
political economy. Jakob debate for Stuyvesant High School where he won Blake, GMU, Ridge,
Scarsdale, Columbia, the NCFL national championship, and amassed 11 bids. He coached the
winners of the NCFL national tournament, Harvard, and Blake.
Champion Briefs 17
Topic Analysis by Belén Mella February 2019
Topic Analysis by Belén Mella
Introduction
This February, debaters will be discussing the arena of international conflicts. The topic
is Resolved: The United States should end its arms sales to Saudi Arabia. This is a question that
American leaders have been considering for quite some time. Indeed, a Washington Post article
from 1978 describes then president Jimmy Carter struggling over whether to sell the country
military planes.1 At the crux of this debate lies the question of whether Saudi Arabia continues
to be of strategic importance to the United States, and whether that should outweigh other
considerations like their government’s record with human rights. Debaters will have to navigate
and weigh many complex issues, but with a relatively straightforward resolution wording, it is
sure to make for productive and interesting debates.
Background
Debaters should manage quite a bit of context and history to get the most of this
debate. For starters, it’s important to know that the United States is the world's largest
weapons exporter, and that Saudi Arabia is our biggest customer. According to CBS News, “the
U.S. sold a total of $55.6 billion of weapons worldwide” this fiscal year, clearing $18 billion in

1 "Carter's Dilemma on Saudi Arms Sales." The Washington Post. February 02, 1978. Accessed January 08, 2019.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/02/02/carters-dilemma-on-saudi-arms-sales/50ee4965-1805-
4240-99a7-21e3bfb9510c/?utm_term=.78da98021501.
Champion Briefs 18
“new Saudi arms deals” in 2017.2 According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. and
Saudi Arabia have cooperated on security matters and business for decades, a relationship that
was made especially key when the Iranian revolution turned the country from a U.S. ally to an
adversary on the global stage.3 The current de facto leader of Saudi Arabia is Mohammed bin
Salman, crown prince since mid-2017.
Relations with the U.S. have been warm under President Trump, but as the CFR notes,
“recent actions under the crown prince’s leadership, particularly the killing of journalist Jamal
Khashoggi, are posing new strains on the alliance, as many members of the U.S. Congress have
called for punishing Riyadh [the capital] and reassessing the relationship.4” This is not the only
issue that has posed a strain to the alliance. Al Jazeera’s Steven Wright reports that “in 2018,
concerns were steadily mounting over the role of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
(MBS) in a range of controversial foreign policy missteps - from the Yemen conflict to the
blockade of neighboring Qatar and the near-collapse of the Gulf Cooperation Council.5”
Thus, we arrive at the question: should the United States end its arms sales to Saudi
Arabia? On the one hand, Saudi Arabia is being accused of possible war crimes in Yemen by the
United Nations, and they’re using American made weapons on the ground.6 On the other hand,

2 Ivanova, Irina. "Saudi Arabia Is America's No. 1 Weapons Customer." CBS News. October 13, 2018. Accessed
January 08, 2019. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-buyer-of-u-s-weapons/.
3 "U.S.-Saudi Arabia Relations." Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed January 08, 2019.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-saudi-arabia-relations.
4 Ibid.
5 Wright, Steven. "The United States and Saudi Arabia: Troubled times Ahead?" GCC News | Al Jazeera. January
08, 2019. Accessed January 08, 2019. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/united-states-saudi-arabia-
troubled-times-190104092436711.html.
6 Gregg, Aaron, and Christian Davenport. "Defense Contractors Stand with White House on Saudi Arms Sales."
The Washington Post. October 25, 2018. Accessed January 08, 2019.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/25/defense-contractors-stand-with-white-house-saudi-arms-
sales/?utm_term=.fce46409e387.
Champion Briefs 19
they’re going to buy weapons from somewhere even if it isn’t the United States, so it may not
be worth it to strain our strategic relationship (and our budgets) by choosing to end arm sales
to make a moral point. Indeed, President Trump has argued that arm sales to Saudi Arabia
create half a million American jobs, though “several major defense firms have made lower
projections.7” The CFR adds that the Trump signed arms deals “expected to total some $350
billion over a decade,” and that “Saudi Arabia’s total arms imports were almost eighteen times
greater... in 2017 than they were a decade earlier.8”
What would it even look like to affirm, that is, to end arm sales to Saudi Arabia? Aren’t
weapons manufactured and sold by private companies, and if so, how can the government
elect to end sales? As the Washington Post explains, “for U.S. defense contractors to sell
weapons systems abroad, they have to first go through a complicated government process that
involves the Defense Department, State Department and Congress, which vet each deal’s
geopolitical, security and human rights implications.9” Thus, major U.S. defense contractors like
Lockheed, Boeing and Raytheon would have to heed government policy on whether to sell arms
to Saudi Arabia. Though it isn’t the crux of the debate, debaters might still want to consider
what such a policy would actually look like, opening up arguments about issues upon
implementation or related disadvantages. As this issue comes up in Congress a lot, they can
look through real proposed congressional legislation to get a sense. Recently, for instance,

7 "U.S.-Saudi Arabia Relations." Council on Foreign Relations.
8 Ibid.
Champion Briefs 20
there's H.R.7082 “to prohibit the provision of United States security assistance to the
Government of Saudi Arabia, and for other purposes.10”
Pro Arguments
The Pro side of this resolution supports ending arm sales to Saudi Arabia. Likely the main
argument for Pro teams will be the misuse of these arms at the hands of the Saudi military.
According to ThinkProgress, “as of August 2018, strikes by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen
have resulted in the deaths of nearly 6,600 civilians, including children, and the wounding of
nearly 10,500, with millions more suffering from food and medical shortages as a result of the
Saudi assault on the port city of Hodeidah.11” The Trump administration certified that the
Saudi-led coalition is “undertaking demonstrable actions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians
and civilian infrastructure,” but human rights agencies remain skeptical of these claims.12
Indeed, the United Nations has stated that Saudi action might amount to “war crimes”
that are “bolstered by U.S. arms and training.13” For this very reason, Germany has suspended
arm sales to the kingdom, and the Washington Post reported in October that “the European
Union passed a resolution… urging a ban on weapons sales in response to Khashoggi’s killing.14”
The Con side will argue that if the United States doesn’t sell arms to Saudi Arabia some other

10 McGovern, and James. "H.R.7082 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): To Prohibit the Provision of United States
Security Assistance to the Government of Saudi Arabia, and for Other Purposes." Congress.gov. October 23, 2018.
Accessed January 08, 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/7082.
11 Khatami, Elham. "The Long History of U.S. Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia." ThinkProgress. October 12, 2018.
Accessed January 08, 2019. https://thinkprogress.org/the-long-history-of-u-s-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-
13aaa614a543/.
12 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
Champion Briefs 21
nation will, but if enough countries get behind ceasing sales, the dominos could quickly start to
tumble for Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Furthermore, a diminished availability of weapons
might push prices for these weapons higher -- at least decreasing access.
Con teams will also make an economic case for continuing arm sales, arguing that they
support U.S. jobs and government revenue via taxes. As Irina Ivanova of CBS News puts it,
though, “some economists question the effectiveness of the military jobs approach, however,
noting that federal spending on education, health care or infrastructure creates many more
jobs than defense spending does.15”
Another argument Pro teams might explore is the conflicting strategic and arms sales
relationships that the United States has in the Middle East. For example, it is well known that
the United States supports the Israeli military. Some analysts argue that these various arms
sales relationships are the seedlings of an arms race, which while convenient for U.S. defense
contractors, could spell disaster for Middle Eastern security. As William Hartung puts it for the
CFR, “by throwing weapons at Saudi Arabia with one hand while giving them to Israel with the
other, are we not simply arming both sides of a nascent arms race? Is Iran likely to be cowed by
the Saudi mega-deal, or will it simply seek a way to ratchet up its own military capabilities?16”

15 Ivanova, Irina. "Saudi Arabia Is America's No. 1 Weapons Customer."
16 Hartung, William. "Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?" Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed January 08,
2019. https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea.
Champion Briefs 22
Con Arguments
The Con side of this resolution argues that the United States should continue to sell
arms to Saudi Arabia. Anthony Cordesman writes in the CFR that it’s important to note that
sales are “large in dollar terms, but not in terms of numbers of weapons.17” In order to
understand that there is not a major military build-up, it’s key to look at the numbers: “Saudi
Arabia had an air force with some 417 combat aircraft in 2000, and it now has only 219… It will
take some three to five years to deliver and put fully in service, replace some eighty-seven
obsolete F-5A/Bs and F-5EIIs that were in service in 2000.” Meanwhile, the arm sales represent
huge financial gains for U.S. companies, protecting jobs at firms like Lockheed, Boeing and
Raytheon.18
Cordesman outlines a few other reasons why the U.S. should continue to sell arms. For
one, “the stability of Gulf energy exports is critical to our economy and every job in the United
States.” It’s important for the United States to have strategic allies in the region, and Saudi
Arabia has historically played this role. It will be up to debaters to determine whether this
relationship has actually served U.S. interests, and whether the U.S. has alternatives if matters
with Saudi Arabia were to become strained. Con debaters should also peer into the specific
nature of Saudi arms purchases. For instance, currently in the works are upgrades of the Saudi
Patriots which “create a base for an integrated approach to air and missile defense,” that is,

17 Cordesman, Anthony. "Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?" Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed January
08, 2019. https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea.
Champion Briefs 23
“advanced missile defense systems like THAAD” which focus on defensive rather than offensive
tactics.
Another aspect of the Con argument needs to be that if we don’t sell arms to Saudi
Arabia, “Moscow, London, Paris, and Beijing will.19” This is important for a few reasons. For
one, it means that a lot of Pro arguments might be non-unique, meaning they happen in either
world, irrespective of which side the judge votes for. Moreover, it means that the Con has a
specific advantage, because if it’s the U.S. selling arms, there is more “interdependence that
gives both the current Saudi government as well as Saudi governments for the next fifteen to
twenty years a strong incentive to work with the United States.20”
Conclusion
This topic is rich and multi-layered. Debaters will have to parse the difference between
stated goals and various policy measures intended to achieve them. For instance, both Pro and
Con might want stability in the Middle East. However, Pro will argue that arms sales fuel
conflict and even a potential arms race that destabilize the region. Meanwhile, Con will argue
that arm sales maintain interdependence between the United States and Saudi Arabia, while
helping the latter build up a strong defensive arsenal. This is a research intensive topic, and will
require debaters to act like big picture strategists to make the links that journalists and
policymakers might be missing. I wish everyone the best of luck!

19 Gause III, F. Gregory. "Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?" Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed January
08, 2019. https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea.
20 Cordesman, Anthony. "Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?"
Champion Briefs 24
Topic Analysis by Zachary Ginsberg February 2019
Topic Analysis by Zachary Ginsberg
Introduction
After two domestic topics in a row, it is time to turn our attention back abroad with a
topic that focuses primarily on international relations and conflict. It is important to consider
that this necessitates a shift in priorities and a change in mindset. What impacts matter the
most will change because people in the developing world are starting from a much worse off
position, many lacking what we consider necessities in the United States and often take for
granted. This is especially true in war torn areas, like Yemen, which will comprise most of the
debate on this topic.
Not only will the impact analysis change, but the problems and institutional
infrastructure are very different as well, which means that many of the ideas that applied to
problems and solutions in America will not apply on this topic. Thus, this changes the dynamic
of the topic and as a team coming up with arguments, your strategic concerns should adjust as
such.
Teams should familiarize themselves with basic facts of the countries at play, namely
Saudi Arabia and Yemen. At least reading the Wikipedia page on their histories and current
state of affairs is better than nothing, but the best teams will have an even more robust
understanding of the situations at hand.
Furthermore, I suggest that teams read a lot about the history of our relationship with
Saudi Arabia. This will give teams a much better understanding of how similar actions have
Champion Briefs 25
been received in the past and how each party has responded. It also can give teams an idea of
what kind of impacts are up for grabs here. What exactly does Saudi Arabia do for us? Why are
we even diplomatic allies with them to begin with?
Finally, I strongly advise that teams read up on the basics of Middle Eastern modern
history. History often repeats itself, so looking to the past and seeing how the dynamics have
evolved over the years will help a lot with formulating arguments and hypothesizing what may
happen when the United States takes such a big action.
All in all, a daunting and foreign topic, yes, but it is certainly surmountable with
sufficient research and a mindful look into the past for hints as to what may unfold in the
future.
Tournament Considerations
There are many tournaments in February, but the most important is undoubtedly the
Harvard Invitational. With one of the largest pools, if not the largest of any tournament,
Harvard presents its own unique set of challenges. With as many as 400 teams, breaking as a 4-
2 team is not even guaranteed. This means that to succeed, there is very little margin for error
even in preliminary rounds.
To do well at Harvard, teams should make sure that their prep is not only top notch and
well researched, but also that they have thought through strategy and tried it out in practice
rounds. I recommend that teams have multiple practice rounds with their teammates, and even
if your team is small you can have one on one rounds with your partner. At the very least,
debaters should practice giving summaries and final focuses for both sides, predicting what
your opponents might go for and how they may respond to your case. This is critical when
Champion Briefs 26
preparing for a real round because it decreases the chances of being flustered and not knowing
what to do.
As for the judging, although Harvard is known for having terrific judges, debaters must
be prepared for anything. With a pool of competitors this large, the pool of judges will be
proportionally as large. This means that there can be a lot of variation and the cases you run
should be palatable to and easily understood by a wide audience, but also strategic and packed
with good links and impacts to win over the more technical judges in the pool.
Of course, despite the pressure and seemingly daunting competition, it is important to
maintain a good attitude and have fun. At Harvard, despite and possibly even because of, the
highly energized atmosphere is one of the most fun tournaments of the year. It’s an event to
look forward to.
Strategy and Weighing
On this topic I believe there will be two main categories of impacts: short term punchy
impacts and longer term more systemic ones. This is often the case, but it is particularly
pronounced on this topic, with the con mainly arguing for the long term and the pro mainly
arguing for the short term.
The short-term impacts in consideration here mainly have to do with the state of the
war in Yemen and what Saudi Arabia will do with these weapons immediately upon receiving
them. The longer-term impacts have to do with how withdrawing our support affects Saudi
Arabia’s willingness to cooperate with us on future issues and of course who may step in in our
place.
Champion Briefs 27
It is important to be able to go toe to toe on both fronts if you want to write a good
case. This is important because it means that you should be sufficiently equipped to outweigh
your opponent’s arguments on their own weighing mechanism, a very powerful move for most
judges.
On the other hand, I strongly recommend having a specific focus of the case. Spend
most of your time on either the short term or the long term and do robust weighing so that
even if your opponent’s win their cases, it becomes impossible for them to win the round.
Weighing can be as simple as to say: the long term matters more because we will spend more
time in the long term than we will now, thus the impacts there affect more people. That is
sufficient. On the other side, for short term impacts, weighing must do primarily with the
certainty of the impact manifesting itself. The probability that these weapons may be used
maliciously in the Yemeni civil war is essentially 100 percent because Saudi Arabia is doing that
right now. Who knows what may happen in the future. We are so often wrong to predict how
international relations will play out— it isn’t worth wasting lives we know we can save right
now.
Both lines of logic are very compelling but be sure to do the weighing in every speech
and even start the rebuttal with an overview that explains how important your impact is.
For the short-term impacts, explain how bad it really is for Yemen to be bombed. Stress
the high death toll, and that alone should be mortifying, but add on also how damage to
infrastructure and the stability of the state will wreck the country for years to come. Without
roads, hospitals, and schools as they are bombed, without a unified government which is
fractured over the war, it becomes harder and harder to recover going forward. In that sense
Champion Briefs 28
you can make this into a long-term impact with a focus on Yemen, except it has a much higher
probability than the con’s long-term impacts.
For the long-term impacts, investigate the past. Explain how important alliances with
our Middle Eastern allies have been in promoting peace. Stress that they have been on balance
successful at reducing violence, despite bumps in the road. Give historical examples to ground
the idea and make the argument real in the minds of the judges. Develop a fact claim that the
judge can latch on to and already agrees with and couch your argument in that idea. This way
you must do less to convince the judge since they already agree with the crux of your argument
and have agreed for years if not their whole lives.
All I can say is that clarity in this regard is key on a topic that is prone to be so bogged
down with specifics and up to date news. Rounds will get confusing very quickly, so
maintaining a tried and true through line can help keep your narrative consistent and clear for
the judge, ultimately making their decision a lot easier.
Affirmative Argumentation
The go to argument on the affirmative is very strong. This of course, is the argument
that the weapons we are providing Saudi Arabia are being used to kill innocent civilians by the
thousands in Yemen. The link is clear and strong, and the impact is unquestionably enormous.
The teams that win on this side must be able to develop this stock argument in a nuanced and
sophisticated fashion.
How does one do this? I have a few suggestions.
Champion Briefs 29
Most importantly, frontline common negative responses in case. This will make the
negative rebuttal increasingly useless and make it much easier to give summaries. It is also
especially important to have good, up to date evidence on this front because con responses to
this argument are likely to be very strong after hitting so many versions of it repeatedly.
One response that is likely to be quite common is that another country, like China, will
provide weapons if we do not. The pro can respond to this in two main ways:
First, by talking about China’s ability and incentive to match the United States’ weapons
sales. The pro can say that China does not have as good of weapons as the United States, or
that they cannot provide as many, or they won’t be able to provide any weapons at all. The pro
can also say that China has no political will to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. They are too
focused on other international affairs, so this would not be in their top priorities, especially as
spaces for their expansion open up in many other places that the United States is receding
from, like Somalia and Afghanistan. These other locations may be easier to capitalize on than a
ravaging civil war in Yemen. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia does not have the best image now, so
becoming closer to Saudi Arabia may hurt China more than it helps.
Secondly, the pro can talk about the uniqueness of the relationship between Saudi
Arabia and the United States. The pro can say that Saudi Arabia is dependent on the United
States specifically for several reasons. For one, we buy a lot of their oil, which means that
staying on our good side is very important to them. However, the United States also has a
stronger military and economy than any other country in the world, so it behooves Saudi Arabia
to not move on to another ally as we provide very strong aid no other country can.
Negative Argumentation
Champion Briefs 30
On the con, the most offensive arguments will have to do with how stopping weapons
sales will change our relationship with Saudi Arabia going forward if they do not comply with
our demands.
There are two important parts of this argument that must be robustly explained: one,
why this stopping of arms sales is a tipping point in our relationship, and two, specifically what
Saudi Arabia will do in response that is so harmful. Luckily, both are easy to address.
Let’s give some examples for both.
First, why would this be a tipping point? The war in Yemen matters a lot to Saudi
Arabia, which means that holding off support specifically at this time would not go over well
with them. Not only is Saudi Arabia fighting what it sees as a deeply important religious war,
but it is also fighting in a proxy war with one of its largest regional enemies, Iran. The war in
Yemen is a crucially important affair for Saudi Arabia and losing here would really hit them
hard. Thus, withdrawing support when they believe they need it most would go over very badly
in the Saudi Arabian government, making them much less likely to trust the United States going
forward, and likely force them to respond strongly, which brings me to the second area of
concern for this argument: what exactly might Saudi Arabia do?
It is important to note that generally impacting out to “soft power” or “diplomacy” is
not enough to win a round. Teams must explain what the terminal impact is, and offer impact
scenarios, which ground the amorphous possibilities of decline in the good terms of our
relationship for the judge.
Here are a few examples: Saudi Arabia carries out counterterrorism activities all the
time. In fact, they are one of the main fighters of terrorism in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia
Champion Briefs 31
also collects and shares intelligence with the United States that we are not privy to given how
far away we are from the action and their proximity to the conflicts. Intelligence is often more
important than anything else when fighting terrorism. If all we had to do was beat out the
terrorists on weaponry and manpower, the battle would have been won ages ago. The issue is
clearly that we don’t know where they are and how to respond to the systemic threat that it
poses.
Perhaps most importantly however, is that maintaining a good relationship with Saudi
Arabia ensures that they will not actively support bad terrorist groups they might otherwise if
they didn't impede on our interests. The weighing here becomes very strong because even if
Saudi Arabia is supporting a horrible civil war in Yemen, it might also be fueling the flames of
other conflicts as well if we weren’t acting as a counterweight to their involvement. This
effectively beats out the pro on their own impact.
About Zachary Ginsberg
Zachary Ginsberg is the Debate Coach for Trinity High School in New York City.
Throughout his high school debate career, Zach amassed a total of 15 bids to the Tournament
of Champions and was awarded a top 5 speaker award at Bronx, Harvard, and Columbia. He
has reached semifinals or further of Blake, GMU, Ridge, Bronx, the Glenbrooks, and Scarsdale.
In his senior year, Zach championed the Columbia Invitational and finished in the top ten at the
TOC, NCFL Nationals, and NSDA Nationals. Now, Zach is a sophomore at Columbia University.
Champion Briefs 32
General Information February 2019
General Information
Foreword: We, at Champion Briefs, feel that having deep knowledge about a topic is just as
valuable as formulating the right arguments. Having general background knowledge about the
topic area helps debaters form more coherent arguments from their breadth of knowledge. As
such, we have compiled general information on the key concepts and general areas that we feel
will best suit you for in- and out-of-round use. Any strong strategy or argument must be built
from a strong foundation of information; we hope that you will utilize this section to help build
that foundation.
Champion Briefs 34
The Economics of Arms Sales
The US has been the world’s leading exporter in weapons since 1990 and the biggest
customer is Saudi Arabia. The U.S. sold a total of $55.6 billion of weapons worldwide, and in
2017, cleared $18 billion dollars with Saudi Arabia alone. Last May, Trump signed a new arms
deal that is allegedly supposed to bring in more than 110 billion dollars. Under the current
administration, the sale of these weapons is not to be halted any time soon. Even when the
prince of Saudi Arabia was accused of being involved with journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Trump
chose to turn a blind eye, rationalizing that “I don't like the concept of stopping an investment
of $110 billion into the United States.” Beyond simply selling more arms, the Trump
administration has also taken steps to cut regulations and decrease the long wait times that
usually accompanies weapons sales, claiming that it will expand opportunities for the American
industry and create more jobs.21

21
Ivanova, Irina. “Saudi Arabia Is America's No. 1 Weapons Customer.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 13 Oct. 2018,
www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-buyer-of-u-s-weapons/.
Champion Briefs 35
Not only is the amount of arms being sold to Saudia Arabia increasing; under the Trump
administration, aircrafts have ceased to be the largest component of US arms sales, with bombs
and missiles dominating the market.22

22
Khatami, Elham. “The Long History of U.S. Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia.” ThinkProgress, ThinkProgress, 12 Oct. 2018,
thinkprogress.org/the-long-history-of-u-s-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-13aaa614a543/.
Champion Briefs 36
While Trump has been under fire for his continual selling of arms, Obama enacted a similar
policy towards Saudi Arabia. Although U.S.-Saudi relations grew slightly tense toward the end of
President Obama’s term, largely due to the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal and Saudi’s unwillingness to
engage with Iran, Obama’s administration oversaw the largest U.S.-Saudi arms deals in
American history23. From 2008 to 2015, Obama’s sales to Saudi Arabia amounted to nearly $94
billion.
Why the selling of weapons is controversial
Selling arms to Saudi Arabia has long been controversial because many view it as aiding
the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. The conflict began in the Arab Spring in 2011 when Yemen’s
Authoritarian president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, was forced to hand over power to Abdrabbuh
Mansour Hadi, his deputy. While this act was supposed to bring stability to Yemen, it only

23 Khatami, Elham. “The Long History of U.S. Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia.” ThinkProgress, ThinkProgress, 12 Oct. 2018,
thinkprogress.org/the-long-history-of-u-s-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-13aaa614a543/.
Champion Briefs 37
illustrated President Hadi’s inability to lead the nation to prosperity; he was unable to deal with
the militant attacks, corruptions, food insecurity, and the general disloyalty towards his rule. In
2014, the Houthi rebel movement took the capital of Sanaa, forcing President Hadi abroad24.
This lead to a civil war breaking out in Yemen, with Saudi Arabia, who sees the Houthi as
proxies to the Iranians25, and eight other mostly Sunni Arab states, sought to restore President
Hadi’s power. Thus, the Yemen conflict became a proxy war between the Saudi Arabians and
the Iranians.
This conflict has only escalated with the United States, as well as the UK and France,
continually selling more and more arms to Saudi Arabia. On August 9th, a bomb, identified as a
500-pound weapon sold to Saudi Arabia by Lockheed Martin, hit a school bus in Yemen killing
dozens of children. In 2016, a similar strike killed 155 people in a funeral hall, and a US-made
bomb killed 97 people in a marketplace. The US has been responsible for selling weapons to
Saudi Arabia that continually kills innocent civilians every day. After these attacks, the Obama
administration banned US companies from selling precision-guided military technology to Saudi
Arabia, but this ban was soon lifted in March 2017 by Rex Tillerson. Overall, this conflict has
lead to thousands of civilian deaths, with the death toll as high as 50,000 as of September 2018.
The UN has deemed this conflict “the world's worst man-made humanitarian disaster.”26

24
“Yemen Conflict Explained in 400 Words.” BBC News, BBC, 13 June 2018, www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-
44466574.
25
Wintour, Patrick. “Why Is Saudi Arabia in Yemen and What Does It Mean for Britain?” The Guardian, Guardian News and
Media, 8 Mar. 2018, www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/08/why-saudi-arabia-in-yemen-what-does-it-mean-for-britain.
26
“The Consequences of Selling Arms to Saudi Arabia.” America Magazine, 7 Sept. 2018, www.americamagazine.org/politics-
society/2018/09/07/consequences-selling-arms-saudi-arabia.
Champion Briefs 38
Champion Briefs 39
27
How the situation is evolving
While Trump didn’t seem that fazed by the killing of journalist Jama Khashoggi, calls for
more restrictions on arms exports have been growing in Europe. Denmark and Finland
suspended new arms deals with Saudi Arabia. Germany has called to suspend new arms deals
to Saudia Arabia. In recent years, a lot of exporters have dramatically decreased their supply.
THe UK transferred 843 million dollars worth of arms in 2016, but only $438 million last year.
French exports dropped from $174 million in 2015 to $91 million in 2016 and $27 million last
year. Deals involving major weapons can be tracked here.

27
Dewan, Angela. “These Are the Countries Still Selling Arms to Saudi Arabia.” CNN, Cable News Network, 23 Nov. 2018,
www.cnn.com/2018/11/22/middleeast/arms-exports-saudi-arabia-intl/index.html.
Champion Briefs 40
Champion Briefs 41
Why the US is involved28
With the arms funneling into such a large humanitarian crisis, it ought to be noted why
the United States chooses to continue selling these arms
• The US has a strong reliance on oil, and most of the oil imports come from the middle
east. In terms of US oil interests, an ally in the region can help stop a nuclear arms race
in the region and be a proxy to keep the region more stable, allowing the US access
more oil. The stability of Gulf energy exports is critical to the United States economy and
many jobs in the United States
• Many would contend that if the US refuses to move forward on the sale, the Saudis will
simply buy arms elsewhere. Russia and China are eagerly awaiting to get into the market
and would be happy to fill the void.
• With Iran rising in power, the United States needs allies in the region that have strong
forces to fight alongside them in order to ease the burden on the US military. Iran poses
a massive naval-air assault force threat to the Gulf states and after the US invasion in
Iraq, the Iraqi forces are far from being able to counteract Iran, leaving Saudi Arabia as
the only regional power to work with. Strengthen Saudi Arabia helps ensure security in
the Gulf of Oman and the unstable Red Sea.
• Iran poses a missile and chemical weapons threat and is on its way to becoming a
nuclear threat. By providing Saudia Arabia with integrated approaches to air and missile

28
“Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/expert-
roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea.
Champion Briefs 42
defense (such as THAAD), it gives Saudia Arabia and other Gulf states security and stops
a nuclear arms race in the region.
• The arms sales make the Saudi government dependent on the United States, ergo
providing them with a strong incentive to work with the US in the future. Saudi Arabia
needs continuing support from the US in order to continue funding their military, thus
forcing them to cooperate with the United States.
Champion Briefs 43
Pro Arguments with Con Responses February 2019
PRO: The US should halt arms sales as it is facing pressure

from its allies to do so
Argument: The United States should follow our allies’ lead in halting arms sales.
Warrant: Germany has ceased its arms sales to Saudi Arabia
Rick Noack, The Washington Post, "Germany halts arms deals with Saudi Arabia, en
courages allies to do the same", 10/22/18,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/10/22/germany-its-allies-well-
halt-future-arms-sales-saudi-arabia-until-we-have-clarity-khashoggi-so-should-
you/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e13cd6cb1208
In a move that could put further pressure on President Trump to stop arms sales to
Saudi Arabia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced Sunday evening that her
government would not approve new arms exports to the kingdom until further notice.
“There is an urgent need to clarify what happened — we are far from this having been
cleared up and those responsible held to account,” she said at a news conference. “I
agree with all those who say that the, albeit already limited, arms exports can’t take
place in the current circumstances,” Merkel said. While the move affects future deals,
exports that have already been approved to the second-biggest foreign market for
German arms equipment will proceed for now but may be suspended in the coming
days. Germany is the first major U.S. ally to cast doubts on future arms sales after the
killing of Washington Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi, and the move is
likely to put pressure on bigger exporters to do the same. President Trump has ruled out
suspending arms exports but faces bipartisan calls to hold the alleged perpetrators
behind the writer’s killing accountable.
Champion Briefs 45
Warrant: Countries around the world are reducing arms sales as well
Patrick Wilcken, The Guardian, "Britain and the US must stop fuelling the bloody Saudi
war on Yemen", 03/20/18,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/20/yemen-arms-
saudi-arabia
This conflict has revealed in the starkest possible terms the real cost of the lucrative
global arms trade, not to mention the challenge of implementing the UN arms trade
treaty. Beyond the US and the UK, many other countries – including France, Spain and
Italy – profess their support for human rights and adherence to the treaty while
similarly lavishing hi-tech weaponry on the Saudi coalition. However, on this grim
anniversary for Yemen there are glimmers of hope. Across the world vocal criticism from
campaigners, journalists and, crucially, some politicians has begun to bear fruit. In
recent months, under growing public pressure, a host of European countries have
suspended arms transfers to the Saudi coalition. In other countries where arms
exports have continued, they are coming under intense scrutiny, with court challenges
and growing criticism from parliamentarians and the wider public. It’s just possible the
tide may be turning. In Greece, there was a storm of protest in December when news
emerged of a deal to send 300,000 tank shells to Saudi Arabia. Amid mounting pressure,
led by Amnesty Greece, a parliamentary committee broke with precedent and cancelled
the deal.
Warrant: Currently, the US is looking to increase arms sales while their allies are pushing to
stop them
Tom O'Connor, Newsweek, "WHO STILL SELLS WEAPONS TO SAUDI ARABIA?
Champion Briefs 46
SPAIN JOINS OTHERS TO CANCEL ARMS DEAL, BUT SOME WANT TO SELL MORE",
09/12/18, https://www.newsweek.com/who-still-gives-weapons-saudi-arabia-
spain-cancel-others-want-more-1116673
In light of a recent diplomatic spat, Canada and Saudi Arabia have ceased all trade,
including military equipment, and Wezeman said that Italy had raised the discussion
of ending such weapons sales. Still, Saudi Arabia retains many supporters abroad.
Some countries, such as the U.S., are even looking to increase their military ties to the
Gulf state despite lawmakers increasingly questioning this relationship at home.
Despite the fact that it was likely a U.S. bomb that killed more than 50 people, including
40 children, in Saudi's bus bombing last month, Defense Secretary James Mattis claimed
weeks later that the U.S. was only "watching" the conflict unfold. He said the Pentagon
was only interested in battling Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State militant group (ISIS),
despite reports featured last month by the Associated Press and last year by Just
Security in Newsweek suggesting that the U.S. was actually assisting Al-Qaeda fighters in
spite of their mutual Houthi foe.
Impact: Inaction on behalf of the United States only further emboldens Saudi Arabia to commit
mass atrocities
Mohamad Bazzi, The Atlantic, "The United States Could End the War in Yemen If It
Wanted To", 09/30/18,
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/09/iran-yemen-saudi-
arabia/571465/
After the Trump administration’s endorsement this month, the Saudi-UAE

alliance has even less incentive to prevent civilian casualties and new
humanitarian disasters. Saudi Arabia and its allies are more likely to accept a
Champion Briefs 47
peace process if it is clear that the United States won’t support an open-ended
war in Yemen and won’t provide the military assistance required to keep the
war apparatus going. But Trump has shown little sign of pressuring his Saudi and
Emirati allies, least of all over Yemen. The only realistic check left is in Congress,
where more voices are asking why the world’s most powerful country is
helping to perpetuate the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
Analysis: This argument is strategic because it shows that the US is the unique nation that
controls the arms leverage over Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, one could argue that symbolically
this allows Saudi Arabia to further stray from international norms if in this case it is revealed
that it can do so unscathed because of US support. Thus, it is vital that the United States stand
with their other allies now and in the future.
Champion Briefs 48
A/2: The US should halt arms sales as it is facing pressure from

its allies to do so
Response: Other countries aren’t enough to influence Saudi Arabia on their own not because of
the US relationship, but because they sell Saudi Arabia a miniscule amount of weapons.
Warrant: The US sells far more arms
Angela Dewan, CNN, "hese are the countries still selling arms to Saudi Arabia",
11/23/18, https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/22/middleeast/arms-exports-saudi-
arabia-intl/index.html
Overall, no country comes close to the United States in major weapons supply. Over
the past five years, for example, the US accounted for 61% of major arms sales to the
Saudis. The UK was a distant second, with a 23% share, while France, in third place, was
a mere 4%.
Warrant: Other large exporters aren’t curbing their arms sales either
Dominic Dudley, Forbes, "Why More And More Countries Are Blocking Arms Sales To
Saudi Arabia And The UAE", 09/07/18,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/09/07/why-more-and-
more-countries-are-blocking-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-and-the-
uae/#1cd14574580a
The largest arms suppliers to Riyadh are the U.S., with $8.4bn worth of sales since
2014, followed by the UK ($2.6bn) and France ($475m). The governments of these
Champion Briefs 49
three countries show little or no interest in curbing their lucrative deals with Gulf
countries. However, a growing number of other governments are taking a different
approach and, even in London, Paris and Washington, there are regular legal and
political challenges to the trade.
Analysis: This is a good response because it shows an alternate causality as to why other
countries are so quick to curb arms sales. It is because they are not contributing that much to
Saudi arms in the first place. Additionally, if the largest sellers besides the United States aren’t
curbing arms sales either, it is unlikely that the US halting arms sales will have much of an
effect.
Response: Halting arms sales would hurt the US economy unnecessarily
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is a critical weapons market
Christian Davenport and Aaron Gregg, The Washington Post, "Why Trump wants to
keep Lockheed, Boeing and others in business with Saudi Arabia", 09/15/18,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/15/why-trump-wants-
keep-lockheed-boeing-others-business-with-saudi-
arabia/?utm_term=.1bd26db07fbd
With so much on the line, Loren Thompson, a consultant who counts many of the top
defense firms as clients, said he “would be willing to bet that every major defense
contractor that was scheduled to appear at the conference will go. Because the Saudi
weapons market is too big for any defense contractor to ignore, and the Saudi
leadership is too sensitive to take chances with.” Lockheed Martin, the largest defense
firm in the world, has long counted Saudi Arabia as a key customer. Earlier this year,
Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed’s chief executive, hosted Mohammed bin Salman and gave
him a tour of the company’s satellite and missile defense production facilities in
Champion Briefs 50
Sunnyvale, Calif. They also discussed Lockheed’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) anti-ballistic-missile system, as well as the manufacturing of two
communications satellites that Lockheed is building for the country. Lockheed has had a
presence in Saudi Arabia since 1965, with the delivery of its first C-130 Hercules military
transport aircraft. Since then, it has sold the kingdom missile defense systems,
helicopters, satellites and ships. “Saudi Arabia is one of the most lucrative foreign
markets for our defense contractors,” said Todd Harrison, a defense analyst at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies. “They tend to buy high-end equipment.
They have a lot of money to throw around, and they can make decisions on weapons
purchases pretty quickly because they don’t have a lot of bureaucracy.”
Warrant: New weapons deals don’t actually increase the quantity of weapons by very much
Deborah Jerome, Council on Foreign Relations, "Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?",
09/24/10, https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea
Fourth, the proposed arms sale package creates a level of interdependence that gives
both the current Saudi government as well as Saudi governments for the next fifteen to
twenty years a strong incentive to work with the United States. Saudi Arabia will need
continuing support from the United States during the entire lifecycle of every major
system sold, and no future Saudi government can ignore this fact. Moreover, the sales
are large in dollar terms, but not in terms of numbers of weapons. This will not be
some kind of massive build-up. Saudi Arabia had an air force with some 417 combat
aircraft in 2000, and it now has only 219. The Saudi F-15 buy will not even restore the
force to 2000 numbers. It will take some three to five years to deliver and put fully in
service, replace some eighty-seven obsolete F-5A/Bs and F-5EIIs that were in service in
2000, and help Saudi Arabia compensate for the serious performance limits on 107
aging Tornados still in service.
Champion Briefs 51
Analysis: This is a good response because US industries depend on the Saudi Arabian market
perhaps more than our allies. Additionally, this shows that arms deals from the US specifically
aren’t leading to any sort of weapons stockpile on the part of Saudi Arabia.
Champion Briefs 52
PRO: Saudi attacks damage Yemeni long term development
Argument: By creating such a horrible famine and damaging institutions and infrastructure, US
support for Saudi airstrikes have not only killed millions today but have also damned Yemen
from rebounding any time soon.
Warrant: Saudi attacks have wrecked economic development in Yemen
Walsh, Declan. “The Tragedy of Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen.” The New York Times, 26
Oct. 2018. NYTimes.com,
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/26/world/middleeast/saudi-
arabia-war-yemen.html,
The devastating war in Yemen has gotten more attention recently as outrage over the
killing of a Saudi dissident in Istanbul has turned a spotlight on Saudi actions
elsewhere. The harshest criticism of the Saudi-led war has focused on the airstrikes
that have killed thousands of civilians at weddings, funerals and on school buses,
aided by American-supplied bombs and intelligence. But aid experts and United
Nations officials say a more insidious form of warfare is also being waged in Yemen, an
economic war that is exacting a far greater toll on civilians and now risks tipping the
country into a famine of catastrophic proportions. Under the leadership of Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi-led coalition and its Yemeni allies have imposed a
raft of punitive economic measures aimed at undercutting the Houthi rebels who
control northern Yemen. But these actions — including periodic blockades, stringent
import restrictions and withholding the salaries of about a million civil servants — have
landed on the backs of civilians, laying the economy to waste and driving millions
deeper into poverty. Those measures have inflicted a slow-burn toll: infrastructure
destroyed, jobs lost, a weakening currency and soaring prices. But in recent weeks the
Champion Briefs 53
economic collapse has gathered pace at alarming speed, causing top United Nations
officials to revise their predictions of famine.
Warrant: US support prevents peaceful attempts to solve the conflict
Bazzi, Mohamad. “The United States Could End the War in Yemen If It Wanted To.” The
Atlantic, 30 Sept. 2018,
arabia/571465/.
By accepting the coalition’s cosmetic attempts to minimize civilian casualties, the

Trump administration is signaling to Saudi and Emirati leaders its apparent belief that
a clear military victory in Yemen remains possible. And as long as the coalition
believes it can crush the Houthis, there’s little incentive for it to negotiate. Trump,
then, has bought into Saudi Arabia’s zero-sum calculation: that a military win in Yemen
for the kingdom and its allies would be a defeat for Iran, while a negotiated settlement
with the Houthis would be a victory for Tehran. Blinded by its obsession with Iran, the
Trump administration is perpetuating an unwinnable war and undermining the
likelihood of a political settlement. This current phase of the conflict in Yemen began in
September 2014, when the Houthis, a group of Shia rebels allied with Yemen’s ousted
dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh, forced most of President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi’s
government to flee to Saudi Arabia, and threatened to take over much of the country.
Warrant: The US can stop airstrikes if we stop selling weapons
Bruton, Brinley. “The U.S. Wants the Saudis to End War in Yemen. And It Has Leverage.”
NBC News, 5 Nov. 2018, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-wants-
yemen-war-end-will-it-stop-selling-n929921.
Champion Briefs 54
Senior U.S. officials have gone further than ever before in calling for an end to the
Saudi-led war in Yemen — a conflict that has pushed 14 million people to the brink of
starvation. “Coalition airstrikes must cease in all populated areas in Yemen,” Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo said last Tuesday. The same day, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis
said all sides needed to take meaningful steps toward a cease-fire and begin
negotiations in the next 30 days. The comments raised the prospect that the Trump
administration is getting tougher with the Saudis over their military campaign against
Iran-linked Houthi rebels, which has killed more than 10,000 people in the desperately
poor country since 2015. All sides have been accused of violating international law and
committing war crimes. Washington supports Saudi Arabia and its ally, the United Arab
Emirates, through billions in arms sales. It also refuels their jets mid-air, provides
training and shares intelligence. So if the U.S. wants to try to force the Saudis' hands, it
has leverage. The best way to force the Saudis to change their ways is to stop sending
weapons, according to Human Rights Watch’s Yemen researcher Kristine Beckerle.
Impact: War makes it increasingly difficult to rebound
Gaub, Florence. “Arab Wars: Calculating the Costs.” European Union Institute for
Security Studies (EUISS), Oct. 2017.
Neighbours are economically affected, too: countries bordering a warzone in the
MENA will lose nearly 2% of their GDP in comparison to 1.4% elsewhere in the world.
The Levant as a whole has foregone $35 billion in lost output or growth because of the
Syrian war – the equivalent of Syria’s entire GDP in 2007. Refugees are a part of the
problem, but they are, of course, not solely responsible for economic difficulties: Jordan,
for example, spends 6% of its GDP and a quarter of its annual revenues on hosting
Syrian refugees. Moreover, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict alone has cost the region $12
trillion – if direct and indirect costs are combined.Economic recovery also takes time:
Lebanon took 20 years to recover from its 15-year civil war, while Kuwait took 7 years
Champion Briefs 55
to repair the damages resulting from the Iraqi invasion and occupation. Although oil-
exporting countries find it easier to rebound, their recovery depends on volatile (and
currently low) oil prices, as well as on the state’s capacity to control exports. In Libya,
for instance, this is not the case: since 2011, Libya’s oil output has consistently declined
and now stands at 25% of its pre-war levels. Most importantly, several of the ongoing
conflicts in the region are part of a larger conflictcycle rather than isolated crises. In the
case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the spill over into Lebanon in the 1970s first
resulted in a civilwar and later led to the emergence of Hizbullah, which fought a war
with Israel in 2006 and is now propping up the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
Analysis: This is a good argument because it impacts out to a very long term problem in Yemen.
Even if the pro is able to prove that there are long term benefits of being allied with Saudi
Arabia, these harms to Yemen will last for generations, surely outweighing any positive benefits
of the alliance.
Champion Briefs 56
A/2: Saudi attacks damage Yemeni long term development
Response: The Blockade is more to blame
Warrant: The Blockade stops UN assistance
Brown, Matt. “Amnesty Accuses Saudi-Led Forces and Houthi Rebels of Possible War
Crimes.” ABC News, 22 June 2018, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-
22/yemen-houthis-and-saudi-forces-hold-up-food-aid-fuel/9897684.
The Saudi coalition has imposed a partial blockade on Houthi held ports and tightened
restrictions after the Houthis launched missiles aimed at the Saudi Arabian capital,
Riyadh. The partial blockade has played a significant role in the collapse of the health
system and exacerbated suffering that Amnesty International said could, "constitute a
war crime”. United Nation staff inspect ships bound for Houthi controlled ports in
support of a UN Security Council arms embargo established in 2015. However, the
coalition mounts subsequent inspections by boarding ships in international waters, or
diverting them to coalition controlled ports.
Warrant: the blockade has created the famine within a year
Norwegian Refugee Council. “Yemenis in Free Fall One Year since Blockade - Yemen.”
ReliefWeb, 5 Nov. 2018, https://reliefweb.int/report/yemen/yemenis-free-fall-
one-year-blockade.
One year since the Saudi-led Coalition imposed a blockade on sea, land and air routes
in Yemen, millions more are edging closer to famine and fatal disease. "The past 12
months have been a never-ending nightmare for Yemeni civilians. The parties to the
Champion Briefs 57
conflict have consistently disavowed the laws of war and employed tactics that
exacerbate suffering for civilian populations," said Jan Egeland, Secretary General of
the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC). The one-year-long partial blockade has
prevented import of vital food, fuel and medical supplies, creating shortages on key
commodities for a population in dire need. This had led to mass inflation and propelled
a crisis already widely regarded as the worst in the world. Fuel imports through
Hodeidah, Yemen's most important sea port, remain drastically low and insufficient for
meeting needs. The past days have also seen fierce fighting and air strikes pick up in the
vicinity of Hodeidah city threatening to further deteriorate civilians' access to safety and
aid.
Analysis: This is a good response because even if the pro can prove that stopping the sale of
weapons will stop air strikes, there are far more insidious tactics at play that are causing
institutional and developmental degradation in Yemen. This will only solve a fraction of the
problem if that, thus taking out the pro’s impact.
Response: Saudi Arabia can get weapons elsewhere
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has already made a deal with Russia
Carrol, Oliver. “Russia and Saudi Arabia ‘sign $3bn Arms Deal’ on King Salman Visit.” The
Independent, 5 Oct. 2017,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-king-salman-visit-
saudi-arabia-moscow-vladimir-putin-a7985161.html.
According to the Kommersant newspaper, agreement has already been reached on a

$3bn (£2.2bn) deal to supply the Saudis with Russia’s most advanced air defence
missile system, the S400 Triumph. According to the publication, the deal will be signed
off at a WTO meeting at the end of October. There may be other deals forthcoming on
Champion Briefs 58
aircraft and helicopters – that depending on the success of talks. Defence is one of few
technological sectors where Russia can still claim to be a world leader, with over a fifth
of all arms deals in 2016. But with China and India, Russia’s biggest markets, looking to
move towards military self-sufficiency, Russia is with increasing urgency looking to open
new markets.
Warrant: British weapons also supply Saudi Arabia with airstrike capabilities
Trew, Bell. “‘Irresponsible and Incoherent’: British-Backed Bombing Raids Destroy UK

Aid in Yemen.” The Independent, 2 Nov. 2018,
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/yemen-saudi-arabia-
oxfam-aid-air-strikes-civilian-casualties-a8615081.html.
She said: “On the one hand, British aid is a vital lifeline, on the other, British bombs are
helping to fuel an ongoing war that is leading to countless lives being lost each week
to fighting, disease and hunger. “The UK continues to sell arms to Saudi Arabia,
whose coalition bombing campaign in Yemen has cut off vital food supplies, destroyed
hospitals and homes, and hit aid programmes funded by British taxpayers.” The UK
Department for International Development (DFID) reported in June 2015 that coalition
warplanes destroyed a warehouse of UK-funded aid in an airstrike. DFID declined to
comment on the latest projects hit. Since Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies launched a
bombing campaign to oust the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in the spring of 2015, the UK
has sold an estimated £3.87billion worth of arms to Riyadh.
Analysis: This is a good response because if Saudi Arabia can get weapons from other countries,
the stopping of US sales will do nothing to improve the state of Yemen. Saudi Arabia does not
need unlimited supplies to launch a few devastating attacks. This entirely takes out the pro’s
impact.
Champion Briefs 59
PRO: Saudi airstrikes worsen the famine in Yemen
Argument: Attacks with US weapons in Yemen have worsened the deathtoll in the civil war, not
only by killing people directly, but by making it harder to access food.
Warrant: The famine in Yemen is one of the worst in history
Graham-Harrison, Emma. “Famine in Yemen Could Become One of Worst in Living

Memory, UN Says.” The Guardian, 24 Oct. 2018. www.theguardian.com,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/25/famine-in-yemen-could-
become-one-of-worst-in-living-memory-un-says.
Yemen is sliding fast toward what could become one of the worst famines in living
memory, the UN’s top emergency relief official has warned. The country is in “clear
and present danger” of mass deaths from starvation, and as many as 14 million people
– half the population – could soon be entirely dependent on aid to survive, the under-
secretary general for humanitarian affairs, Mark Lowcock, said. Fighting is blocking
shipments from getting into the country, let alone to those who need it. Even after
expanding relief operations to help an estimated 8 million people, it is not possible to
reach all those in need. The looming disaster could be “much bigger than anything any
professional in this field has seen during their working lives,” he said. Food prices have
also nearly doubled in the country, Save the Children said in a new report. Yemen has
been at civil war for three years after Houthi rebels backed by Iran seized much of the
country, including the capital, Sana’a. Saudi Arabia and allies including the United Arab
Emirates joined the war in 2015.
Warrant: Saudi airstrikes destroy sanitation facilities
Champion Briefs 60
Lemon, Jason. “13 Million People May Starve in the ‘Worst Famine in 100 Years’ If Saudi-
Led Coalition Keeps Bombing Yemen: U.N.” Newsweek, 15 Oct. 2018,
https://www.newsweek.com/worst-famine-yemen-bombing-saudi-starve-
1171063.
The conflict began when Iran-backed Houthi rebels seized control of the majority of the
country, including the capital, Sanaa. Saudi Arabia and its coalition allies have fought to
support the internationally recognized government, which has gone into exile. The U.S.
has provided military assistance to the coalition, expanding the support under the
administration of President Donald Trump. In three years, at least 10,000 people have
died and millions have been displaced. Civilians have found themselves caught in the
middle, trapped between airstrikes, land mines and bullets. The country is also
suffering from the worst cholera outbreak in the world, with 10,000 new suspected
cases each week, a crisis made worse due to sanitation facilities being destroyed by
airstrikes. “There’s no question we should be ashamed,” Grande said, directing her
comments at the international community. “And we should, every day that we wake up,
renew our commitment to do everything possible to help the people that are suffering
and end the conflict.”
Warrant: Stopping the sale of weapons could promote peace
Bazzi, Mohamad. “The United States Could End the War in Yemen If It Wanted To.” The
Atlantic, 30 Sept. 2018,
arabia/571465/.
Days later, Yemeni forces loyal to the Saudi-UAE alliance launched a new offensive
aimed at forcing the Houthis out of Hodeidah port, which is the major conduit for
humanitarian aid in Yemen. UN officials warn that a prolonged battle for the port and its
Champion Briefs 61
surroundings could lead to the death of 250,000 people, mainly from mass starvation.
After the Trump administration’s endorsement this month, the Saudi-UAE alliance has
even less incentive to prevent civilian casualties and new humanitarian disasters.
Saudi Arabia and its allies are more likely to accept a peace process if it is clear that
the United States won’t support an open-ended war in Yemen and won’t provide the
military assistance required to keep the war apparatus going. But Trump has shown
little sign of pressuring his Saudi and Emirati allies, least of all over Yemen. The only
realistic check left is in Congress, where more voices are asking why the world’s most
powerful country is helping to perpetuate the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
Impact: 13 million could starve if the Saudis keep bombing
Lemon, Jason. “13 Million People May Starve in the ‘Worst Famine in 100 Years’ If Saudi-
Led Coalition Keeps Bombing Yemen: U.N.” Newsweek, 15 Oct. 2018,
https://www.newsweek.com/worst-famine-yemen-bombing-saudi-starve-
1171063.
Between 12 and 13 million people are at risk of starvation within the next three
months if the Saudi Arabian-led coalition continues its bombing of Yemen, the United
Nations has warned. The Yemeni Civil War, which began in 2015, has led to what could
likely become the worst famine in a century. Activists and U.N. monitors have long
warned of the growing humanitarian crisis in the country, but the assault has continued.
“I think many of us felt as we went into the 21st century that it was unthinkable that we
could see a famine like we saw in Ethiopia, that we saw in Bengal, that we saw in parts
of the Soviet Union—that was just unacceptable,” Lise Grande, the U.N.’s humanitarian
coordinator for Yemen, told the BBC on Sunday. “Yet the reality is that in Yemen that is
precisely what we are looking at,” she warned.
Champion Briefs 62
Analysis: This is a good argument because of the mere scale of the impact. Millions of people
starving, one of the worst famines ever— this couldn’t get worse and yet it still does. Any
impact that helps to stop this increasing death toll is easily the most important in the round,
and will definitely outweigh any con argument.
Champion Briefs 63
A/2: Saudi airstrikes worsen the famine in Yemen
Response: Stopping military support will not do much
Warrant: The blockade is the main cause of the famine
Carey, Glen. How Saudis, Allies Made Yemen a Humanitarian Crisis. 19 Oct. 2018.
www.bloomberg.com, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-
19/how-saudis-turned-yemen-war-into-humanitarian-crisis-quicktake.
In principle, the coalition says the purpose of the blockade is to stop Iranian weapons
from entering Yemen to supply the Houthi rebels who are in control of much of the
north, including the capital Sanaa. But in practice, it has cut the amount of desperately
needed food, medicine and fuel getting into the country by more than half, according
to aid groups. What does come through is heavily taxed along the way, as it passes
through territory controlled by different warring factions. Driving along, you pass
markets flush with fresh fruit that no one can afford, while children starve a half mile
down the road. It's a surreal and jarring image, one of many I carried home with me
from Yemen. A doctor in the neo-natal ward of the main government hospital rinsing his
hands with bottled water because there is no soap or working tap.
Warrant: This war is for dominance of the Arabian peninsula and Saudis will keep fighting
CNN, Clarissa Ward, Salma Abdelaziz and Scott McWhinnie. “In Yemen, the Markets
Have Food, but Children Are Starving to Death.” CNN, 19 Dec. 2017,
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/19/middleeast/yemen-intl/index.html.
Champion Briefs 64
Broadly, on one side are Houthi rebels, members of a Shiite Muslim tribe from the
mountains of northern Yemen, who took control of the capital, Sana’a, and other cities
in 2015. They complain of marginalization of their community and are supported by
Shiite-majority Iran. On the other side stand forces of the internationally recognized
Yemeni government and allied militias backed by Saudi Arabia and its coalition of mainly
Sunni Muslim nations. The U.S. and U.K. support the coalition with weapons sales and
logistical help. Its leaders say they feared that Houthi control of Yemen would give Iran
a foothold in the Arabian peninsula that would threaten Saudi interests. Iran and
Saudi Arabia are engaged in a larger battle for dominance in the Arab world. The
recorded civilian death toll from fighting was estimated in August at about 7,000,
although UN officials believe the actual number is substantially higher. Most casualties
have been the result of coalition air strikes, according to the Aug. 28 report of
investigators commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council. The panel reviewed
coalition air strikes that hit residential areas in 60 cases; marketplaces in 11 cases;
civilian boats in 11 cases; and medical, educational, cultural or religious sites in 32 cases.
It said such strikes may amount to war crimes. The investigators said they gathered
reports of shelling into civilian areas by Houthi forces that required further
investigation.
Analysis: This is a good response because it means you can grant the pro the entirety of their
impact and still there is no reason to vote for them because there will continue to be famines in
the future, but also this famine will not be alleviated much given its other causes.
Response: Saudi Arabia can get weapons from someone else
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has already began talking to Russia over the US
Woody, Christopher. “The Saudis Still Haven’t Locked in the Massive Arms Deals Trump
Touted, and They’re Still Talking to Russia about Its Advanced S-400 Air Defense
Champion Briefs 65
System.” Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-hasnt-

signed-us-arms-deals-talking-to-russia-about-s-400-2018-10. Accessed 8 Jan.
2019.
Perhaps more concerning for US officials is Saudi Arabia's continued interest in the
Russian-made advanced S-400 air-defense system. According to The Post, the Saudis
have resisted US requests to disavow their interest buying the S-400 and have
continued talks with Moscow. Saudi Arabia would be only the latest ally with interest
in the Russian-made air-defense system. Turkey has already bought the S-400, earning
rebuke from the US Congress and creating concerns within the NATO alliance. India also
recently agreed to buy the air-defense system during a summit earlier this month — a
deal that raises the prospect of US sanctions on New Delhi. The news of Riyadh
wavering on the THAAD deal comes amid increasing scrutiny on Saudi Arabia over the
disappearance and alleged killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Warrant: Many countries currently sell weapons to Saudi Arabia
Dewan, Angela. “These Are the Countries Still Selling Arms to Saudi Arabia.” CNN, 23
Nov. 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/22/middleeast/arms-exports-saudi-
arabia-intl/index.html.
Arms deals are often done in secret or with little publicity. The Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) tries to track deals involving major
weapons, and a database of Saudi imports from the last decade shows the United
States as the biggest supplier, followed by the United Kingdom, France, Spain and
then Germany. But a lot of exporters still selling to the Saudis have dramatically
decreased their supply in recent years. The United Kingdom, for example, transferred
arms worth an estimated $843 million in 2016 but almost halved that value to $436
million last year, according to SIPRI. (The database uses values constant with 1990 prices
Champion Briefs 66
to eliminate currency fluctuations and inflation.) French exports of major weapons to

Saudi Arabia were worth $174 million in 2015 but dropped to $91 million in 2016 and
$27 million last year. The value of Spanish exports also dramatically decreased in that
time period, but the Spanish government confirmed this year it would go ahead with
arms deals it had previously suggested it would freeze, bowing to pressure from Spanish
manufacturers, according to reports.
Analysis: This is a good response because even if the US does all it can to stop Saudi airstrikes,
this doesn't mean they can’t get the same support from a different ally, which effectively
neutralizes the effect of US action. This takes out the pro’s link and leaves them without an
argument,
Champion Briefs 67
PRO: Propping up Saudi Arabia is bad for the environment
Argument: Stopping selling arms to Saudi Arabia may hurt our relationship with Saudi Arabia,
which is good because it may affect how much oil they are willing to sell us, which has effects
on emissions and climate change.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is the second largest supplier of oil to the US
Egan, Matt. “Saudi Arabia Is No. 2 Supplier of Oil to the United States.” CNN, 15 Oct.
2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/investing/saudi-arabia-oil-imports-
united-states/index.html.
But that doesn't mean it can afford to ignore Saudi Arabia's threat to retaliate against
possible sanctions related to the disappearance of Washington Post journalist Jamal
Khashoggi. The United States still imports 7.9 million barrels of foreign crude per day
and a sizable chunk comes from Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter. Despite
soaring US oil production, the United States still imported 876,000 barrels of crude a day
from Saudi Arabia in July, according to the most recent government statistics. Even
though imports from Saudi Arabia have declined sharply from 10 years ago, the
kingdom remains the No. 2 supplier to the United States, behind only Canada. Saudi
oil represents about 11% of total oil imports, roughly on par with 1973, the year the
kingdom sent oil prices spiking by launching an embargo that crippled the American
economy. "Anyone who thinks our shale oil boom means we can rely less on Saudi
Arabia, doesn't understand how the oil market works," said Bob McNally, president of
consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group and an energy official under President George W.
Bush. In fact, even as US oil production ramped up in September, so did purchases of
Saudi oil. The United States imported 1.1 million barrels per day of Saudi oil last month,
a 16-month high, according to unofficial statistics from research firm ClipperData.
Champion Briefs 68
Warrant: We provide weapons and they provide oil
HENNIGAN, WJ. “What Makes the U.S.-Saudi Relationship So Special? Weapons, Oil and
‘An Army of Lobbyists.’” Time, 18 Oct. 2018, http://time.com/5428669/saudi-
arabia-military-relationship/.
The 75-year alliance between the two nations has been built on a simple
arrangement: American demand for Saudi oil and Saudi demand for American
firepower. It is a relationship that is not easily unwound as a bipartisan group of U.S.
Senators found out earlier this year when they moved to cut off military assistance to
the Saudis in their war against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The United Nations has said
that more half of the more than 10,000 people who have been killed in the three-year
old war are civilians, and the lives of millions are potentially at risk from famine. The U.S.
government has provided intelligence, munitions and midair refueling to Saudi
warplanes since operations kicked off in 2015. Attempts by American lawmakers to stop
that aid have thus far failed. Saudi Arabia has spent at least $5.8 million on lobbying
Congress this year, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a
government watchdog. But recently filed documents detailing expenses and
reimbursements put the actual number closer to $9 million, said Lydia Dennett,
investigator with the Project on Government Oversight.
Warrant: The US began selling weapons to Saudi Arabia in order to get oil
Campbell, Alexia Fernández. “Trump Says Selling Weapons to Saudi Arabia Will Create a
Lot of Jobs. That’s Not True.” Vox, 17 Oct. 2018, https://www.vox.com/policy-
and-politics/2018/10/17/17967510/trump-saudi-arabia-arms-sales-khashoggi.
Trump is hardly the first US president to agree sell fighter jets, missiles, and other
military equipment to Saudi Arabia. President Barack Obama did it, and so did every
Champion Briefs 69
other president going back to the Truman administration. The United States was
desperate for Saudi oil and a military ally in the Middle East, so US politicians have
been willing to sell the kingdom all the war weapons it wants, ignoring the regime’s
record of human rights abuses. In 2016, as Obama ended his last term, his
administration notified Congress about plans to sell $5 billion worth of military
equipment to Saudi Arabia. That included deals brokered by the Pentagon, State
Department, and those handled directly by the US defense companies that make the
equipment. Saudi Arabia wanted to buy missiles and jet fighters. But concerns were
mounting about Saudi Arabia’s ruthless war in Yemen, where the kingdom has been
fighting the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels since 2015. Human rights groups and the
United Nations expressed concern that Saudi airstrikes were killing thousands of
civilians at schools, clinics, markets and weddings.
Impact: Global warming will push millions into poverty
Carter, Rebecca. Climate Change Could Force 100 Million People into Poverty by 2030. 4
Ways We Can Step Up Adaptation | World Resources Institute. 15 June 2018,
https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/06/climate-change-could-force-100-million-
people-poverty-2030-4-ways-we-can-step.
Last month, a blistering heat wave killed at least 60 people in Karachi, Pakistan. Across
East Africa, severe flash flooding displaced hundreds of thousands, and just days into
this year’s hurricane season, a tropical depression off the coast of Mexico exploded into
a Category 4 storm overnight. In the next 12 years, these climate change impacts could
push another 100 million people into extreme poverty. While we must continue
stepping up efforts to limit global temperature rise, we must also rapidly scale up
adaptation action. This is the challenge that over 1,000 policymakers, business leaders,
experts and practitioners will take on next week as they gather in Cape Town – a city
Champion Briefs 70
grappling with its own climate-related water crisis – for the biannual Adaptation Futures
conference. What solutions will they come up with? Here’s a preview of four changes
that must happen to prepare the world, especially the poorest and most vulnerable
communities, for the intensifying climate impacts that lie ahead. Many countries are
already advancing innovative adaptation actions: cyclone shelters across Bangladesh,
rehabilitated mangroves in Fiji and early warning systems for heavy rain in Rio de
Janeiro. But these efforts aren’t adding up.
Analysis: This is a very strong argument because of how big of an impact climate change is.
With rising temperatures and more extreme weather patterns, not only are storms killing
millions but also it becomes harder to plant crops and feed populations. This is undoubtedly
the largest impact in the round if you can link into it, making it easy to win the ballot.
Champion Briefs 71
A/2: Propping up Saudi Arabia is bad for the environment
Response: Climate change is irreversible
Warrant: We have passed the point to return to a stable climate
Wanganui Chronicle. Gwynne Dyer: Passed Point of No Return to Stable Climate. 15 Aug.
2018. www.nzherald.co.nz,
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/science/news/article.cfm?c_id=82&objectid=12107
540.
The hard numbers simply weren't available yet - and if you go public without that
evidence, you will be torn to pieces by your scientific colleagues (who are also your
rivals, of course). So the climate scientists didn't make grand assertions but they did
manage to get the threshold of 2 degrees Celsius higher global temperature adopted as
the never-exceed target for the IPCC's efforts to get the warming under control. The
scale and trigger points of the feedbacks have finally been calculated, more or less.
We have already passed the point where a return to the stable climate of the past
14,000 years is possible, and we are on course for "Hothouse Earth". The best we can
do is try to stabilise the warming at or just below +2C, and that will not be possible
without major human interventions in the climate system. Gwynne Dyer's book
"Climate Wars" was published in 2010. Unfortunately, almost every word in it is still
true.
Warrant: Glacial recession is impossible to reverse
Moreno, Piero. “Glacier Shrinkage Is Past the Point of No Return.” Nature, vol. 555, Mar.
2018, p. 562. www.nature.com, doi:10.1038/d41586-018-03356-5.
Champion Briefs 72
The dramatic shrinkage of the world’s glaciers is likely to continue in the coming
century even if greenhouse-gas emissions are slashed in the next few decades.
Warming since the late nineteenth century has led to a marked retreat of most of the
world’s glaciers. Ben Marzeion at the University of Bremen in Germany and his
colleagues simulated the long-term response of thousands of glaciers to recent and
projected climate change. The researchers found that glaciers are already committed to
enough shrinkage to raise global sea levels by about 10 centimetres, even if global
temperatures do not rise any further for centuries. The Paris climate accord, adopted by
195 countries in 2015, aims to limit long-term warming to 1.5–2 °C above preindustrial
levels. But such a temperature rise is likely to accelerate ice loss until at least the middle
of the twenty-first century. Sustaining today’s glaciers would require a prompt return
to pre-industrial climate conditions, the authors say.
Analysis: This is a good response because it means that even if the pro is able to win all the
links, there is no way for them to access the impact since it is nonunique. If climate change has
passed the point of no return, then reducing our oil intake from Saudi Arabia will not affect the
outcome in any way.
Response: The US is a drop in the bucket
Warrant: China’s emissions continue to increase
Hornby, Lucy, and Leslie Hook. “China’s Carbon Emissions Set for Fastest Growth in 7
Years.” Financial Times, 29 May 2018, https://www.ft.com/content/98839504-
6334-11e8-90c2-9563a0613e56.
China’s carbon emissions are on track to rise at their fastest pace in more than seven
years during 2018, casting further doubt on the ability of the Paris climate change
Champion Briefs 73
agreement to curb dangerous greenhouse gas increases, according to a Greenpeace

analysis based on Beijing’s own data. Carbon emissions in the country, the world’s
largest emitter of greenhouse gases, rose 4 per cent in the first quarter of this year,
according to calculations by the environmental group based on Chinese government
statistics covering coal, cement, oil and gas. If that pace continues it would be the
fastest increase since 2011. The latest finding comes as climate researchers express
concern over rising emissions in China, which accounts for more than a quarter of global
carbon dioxide output. Global emissions were flat from 2014-16 but began rising again
in 2017 as the Chinese economy recovered and as emission grew in the EU and the rest
of Asia. Scientists are concerned the trend in China will continue this year.
Warrant: Fossil fuels are only a small facet of climate change
Wanganui Chronicle. Gwynne Dyer: Passed Point of No Return to Stable Climate. 15 Aug.
2018. www.nzherald.co.nz,
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/science/news/article.cfm?c_id=82&objectid=12107
540.
What the authors are saying is that global warming driven directly by human
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is only part of the problem.
In fact, it's the smaller part. The real threat is the unstoppable natural feedbacks
triggered by the warming that we have caused that will take us up to the killing
temperatures of "Hothouse Earth”. They list 10 of them, the biggest being the loss of
Arctic sea-ice, the melting of the permafrost zone, dieback in both the boreal and the
Amazon forests, and changes driven by warming in the ocean circulation system. Just
triggering one or two of these feedbacks could cause enough additional warming to
set off others, like a row of toppling dominoes, and take us up to those lethal
temperatures within this century. Now, this is not really news to climate scientists.
Champion Briefs 74
Analysis: Even if the US were to reduce our emissions it doesn’t matter because so many other
countries are emitting carbon and are even increasing the rate at which they do. This means
that even if the pro is able to win the link to their argument, they will not access the impact.
Champion Briefs 75
PRO: Ending arms sales will help end the war in Yemen
Argument: Ending arms sales will help to end Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the war in Yemen,
which should reduce the length of the conflict overall.
Warrant: The war in Yemen has erupted due to internal conflict
Staff. Yemen Crisis: Why Is There a War? 18 Dec. 2018. www.bbc.com,

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423.
The conflict has its roots in the failure of a political transition supposed to bring
stability to Yemen following an Arab Spring uprising that forced its longtime
authoritarian president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to hand over power to his deputy,
Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, in 2011. As president, Mr Hadi struggled to deal with a
variety of problems, including attacks by jihadists, a separatist movement in the south,
the continuing loyalty of security personnel to Saleh, as well as corruption,
unemployment and food insecurity. The Houthi movement, which champions Yemen's
Zaidi Shia Muslim minority and fought a series of rebellions against Saleh during the
previous decade, took advantage of the new president's weakness by taking control of
their northern heartland of Saada province and neighbouring areas. Disillusioned with
the transition, many ordinary Yemenis - including Sunnis - supported the Houthis and
in late 2014 and early 2015, the rebels took over Sanaa.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has instituted horrible economic measures against Yemen
Champion Briefs 76
arabia-war-yemen.html.
Under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi-led coalition
and its Yemeni allies have imposed a raft of punitive economic measures aimed at
undercutting the Houthi rebels who control northern Yemen. But these actions —
including periodic blockades, stringent import restrictions and withholding the salaries
of about a million civil servants — have landed on the backs of civilians, laying the
economy to waste and driving millions deeper into poverty. Those measures have
inflicted a slow-burn toll: infrastructure destroyed, jobs lost, a weakening currency
and soaring prices. But in recent weeks the economic collapse has gathered pace at
alarming speed, causing top United Nations officials to revise their predictions of
famine. “There is now a clear and present danger of an imminent and great, big famine
engulfing Yemen,” Mark Lowcock, the under secretary for humanitarian affairs, told the
Security Council on Tuesday. Eight million Yemenis already depend on emergency food
aid to survive, he said, a figure that could soon rise to 14 million, or half Yemen’s
population.
Warrant: Stopping arms sales will help end the war
Senior U.S. officials have gone further than ever before in calling for an end to the
Saudi-led war in Yemen — a conflict that has pushed 14 million people to the brink of
starvation. “Coalition airstrikes must cease in all populated areas in Yemen,” Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo said last Tuesday. The same day, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis
Champion Briefs 77
said all sides needed to take meaningful steps toward a cease-fire and begin
negotiations in the next 30 days. The comments raised the prospect that the Trump
administration is getting tougher with the Saudis over their military campaign against
Iran-linked Houthi rebels, which has killed more than 10,000 people in the desperately
poor country since 2015. All sides have been accused of violating international law and
committing war crimes Washington supports Saudi Arabia and its ally, the United Arab
Emirates, through billions in arms sales. It also refuels their jets mid-air, provides
training and shares intelligence. So if the U.S. wants to try to force the Saudis' hands,
it has leverage.
Impact: Two thousand more people die a month in Yemen after Saudi involvement
Cockburn, Patrick. “‘The Yemen War Death Toll Is Five Times Higher than We Think – We
Can’t Shrug off Our Responsibilities Any Longer.’” The Independent, 26 Oct.
2018, https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/yemen-war-death-toll-saudi-
arabia-allies-how-many-killed-responsibility-a8603326.html.
One reason Saudi Arabia and its allies are able to avoid a public outcry over their
intervention in the war in Yemen, is that the number of people killed in the fighting has
been vastly understated. The figure is regularly reported as 10,000 dead in three-and-a-
half years, a mysteriously low figure given the ferocity of the conflict. Now a count by a
non-partisan group has produced a study demonstrating 56,000 people have been killed
in Yemen since early 2016. The number is increasing by more than 2,000 per month as
fighting intensifies around the Red Sea port of Hodeidah. It does not include those
dying of malnutrition, or diseases such as cholera. “We estimate the number killed to
be 56,000 civilians and combatants between January 2016 and October 2018,” says
Andrea Carboni, who researches Yemen for the Armed Conflict Location and Event
Data Project (ACLED), an independent group formerly associated with the University
Champion Briefs 78
of Sussex that studies conflicts and is focusing attention on the real casualty level. He
told me he expects a total of between 70,000 and 80,000 victims, when he completes
research into the casualties, hitherto uncounted, who died between the start of the
Saudi-led intervention in the Yemen civil war, in March 2015, and the end of that year.
Analysis: This is a good argument because it is undoubtedly the most important in the round,
given how many people have died in Yemen as a result of the war and as a result of Saudi
Arabia’s involvement. If Saudi Arabia were to curb their activity in Yemen, millions will be
saved.
Champion Briefs 79
A/2: Ending arms sales will help end the war in Yemen
Response: Saudi Arabia helps stop terrorism
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has gotten better on the issue of counter terrorism
Byman, Daniel L. “The U.S.-Saudi Arabia Counterterrorism Relationship.” Brookings, 30

Nov. 2001, https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-u-s-saudi-arabia-
counterterrorism-relationship/.
I argue that Saudi Arabia has made considerable progress on counterterrorism in the
last 15 years but still has a long way to go. Before the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks, and really until Al Qaeda began to attack the Kingdom directly in May 2003,
Saudi Arabia was often uncooperative on counterterrorism and more part of the
problem than part of the solution. Since 2003, the Saudi regime has emerged as a vital
counterterrorism partner, and several important successes against Al Qaeda in
particular are due in large part to Saudi cooperation. Complicating this picture,
however, is that much of Saudi ‘support’ for terrorism involves actors outside the
Saudi government: the regime has at times supported, at times deliberately ignored,
and at still other times cracked down on these actors. Some of these figures are
important for regime legitimacy, and it is difficult for the regime to openly oppose
them. As a result, the Saudi Kingdom still spews out material that is anti-Semitic,
sectarian, glorifies several conflicts in which jihadists play an active role, and otherwise
contributes to a climate of radicalization. Washington’s ability to influence the
Kingdom is limited, however, given the Saudi domestic sensitivities of these issues. In
the end, policymakers would do well to remember that Saudi Arabia is a key partner
but not a friend: the United States and Saudi Arabia share many common interests, but
they do not share common values or a common worldview.
Champion Briefs 80
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has one of the best counter terrorism programs in the world
Washington Times Staff. “The Myth of Saudi Support for Terrorism.” Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs, 21 July 2016,
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/myth-saudi-support-terrorism.
And this is where the martial perspective comes in: To respond to these terrorist
attacks, Saudi Arabia has created one of the largest and most efficient counter-
terrorism programs in the world, both in its own right and in collaboration with the
United States and its other strategic allies. Major military and security reconfigurations
and appropriations have taken place over the last two decades at the cost of tens of
billions of dollars. The crowning moment of this new Saudi Defense Doctrine came a
few months ago when the kingdom announced a 34-state Islamic coalition to combat
terrorism. As the statement from Riyadh said, the coalition will “protect the Islamic
nation from the evils of all terrorist groups and organizations, whatever their sect and
name, which wreak death and corruption on earth and aim to terrorize the innocent.”
Analysis: This is a good response because even if this particular war is not going well with Saudi
Arabia’s involvement, it is good to keep Saudi Arabia on our side for future instances of
terrorism. Arms sales to Saudi Arabia will on net save more lives than it costs us.
Response: Arms sales help keep back Iran
Warrant: A nuclear Iran could be very dangerous
Staff. “The Iranian Nuclear Threat: Why It Matters.” Anti-Defamation League, 2018,
https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheets/the-iranian-nuclear-threat-why-it-
matters.
Champion Briefs 81
Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian regime will have severe repercussions for
American security and the security of our allies. A nuclear-armed Iran would
embolden Iran's aggressive foreign policy, resulting in greater confrontations with the
international community. Iran already has a conventional weapons capability to hit
U.S. and allied troops stationed in the Middle East and parts of Europe. If Tehran were
allowed to develop nuclear weapons, this threat would increase dramatically. Iran is
one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and
operational support for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. Iran could
potentially share its nuclear technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile
to the United States and the West. While Iranian missiles can't yet reach America, Iran
having a nuclear weapons capability can potentially directly threaten the United States
and its inhabitants. The U.S. Department of Defense reported in April 2012: "With
sufficient foreign assistance, Iran may be technically capable of flight-testing an
intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.”
Warrant: The arms deal will keep Iran at bay
Jerome, Deborah. “Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?” Council on Foreign Relations, 24
Sept. 2010, https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea.
Congress will closely scrutinize the proposed arms deal with Saudi Arabia to make sure it
does not threaten Israel or otherwise destabilize the region. The package appears to be
a careful reconciliation of Saudi requirements with Israeli fears, while also offering a
strategic balance against Iran. The biggest component of the transaction involves new
and refurbished F-15 fighters, which are designed for both air dominance and attack of
ground targets. The fighter sale could have been a serious problem for Israel if Saudi
Arabia had been offered stealthy F-22s or F-35s, because those aircraft would have been
suitable for executing a surprise attack. The F-15 is not stealthy, and although its
movements can be masked through the skillful application of tactics and electronic-
Champion Briefs 82
warfare technology, Israeli defenders should have no difficulty detecting any

threatening moves.
Analysis: This is a good response because a nuclear attack from Iran could mean the
destruction of all humanity. Ultimately, this matters more than the death toll in Yemen, even
though it is high. This functions as a disadvantage, which is capable of winning the round based
on how big the impact is.
Champion Briefs 83
PRO: Saudi Arabia uses these arms to kill innocent civilians
Argument: It is bad to sell arms to Saudi Arabia because they will use these arms to kill
innocent civilians.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia continues to kill in Yemen
“Opinion | Why Are U.S. Bombs Killing Civilians in Yemen?” The New York Times, 30
Aug. 2018. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/opinion/us-
yemen-saudi-arabia-trump-civilian-casualties.html.
The top American air commander in the Middle East voiced frustration in an interview
last week over the murderously incompetent Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen.
Though welcome, his sentiment was far too mild. It should have been more like horror
— and shame over American complicity in what a new United Nations report views as
criminal carnage. Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies intervened in Yemen more than
three years ago to rout Iran-backed Shiite rebels who had driven the internationally
recognized government out of the capital and into Saudi exile. As the conflict has
dragged on, the rebels have also been accused of atrocities, but the United Nations
body and human rights groups say it is the Saudi-led air war that has done the most to
turn an already impoverished country into a humanitarian nightmare and an
indiscriminate killing field. Again and again, Saudi-led airstrikes have struck civilian
targets, slaughtering innumerable innocents. Last Friday, the United Nations said the
coalition killed at least 22 children and four women as they fled a battle zone. Two
weeks earlier, on Aug. 9, a coalition air assault struck a school bus, killing dozens of
children. Countless more civilians have been killed by bombs at markets, weddings,
funerals — more than 6,500 by the official count, but certainly many, many more.
Millions more civilians are suffering from shortages of food and medical care.
Champion Briefs 84
Warrant: A single US bomb has killed 40 school children
Borger, Julian. “US Supplied Bomb That Killed 40 Children on Yemen School Bus.” The
Guardian, 19 Aug. 2018. www.theguardian.com,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/19/us-supplied-bomb-that-
killed-40-children-school-bus-yemen.
The bomb dropped on a school bus in Yemen by a Saudi-led coalition warplane was sold
to Riyadh by the US, according to reports based on analysis of the debris. The 9 August
attack killed 40 boys aged from six to 11 who were being taken on a school trip. Eleven
adults also died. Local authorities said that 79 people were wounded, 56 of them
children. CNN reported that the weapon used was a 227kg laser-guided bomb made
by Lockheed Martin, one of many thousands sold to Saudi Arabia as part of billions of
dollars of weapons exports. Saudi Arabia is the biggest single customer for both the
US and UK arms industries. The US also supports the coalition with refuelling and
intelligence. The investigative journalism site Bellingcat identified bomb fragments, on
photographs and videos taken soon after the bombing, as coming from a laser-guided
version of a Mk-82 bomb called a GBU-12 Paveway II. Based on marking on a fin
segment of the bomb, Bellingcat traced the bomb to a shipment of a thousand of such
bombs to Saudi Arabia, approved by the state department in 2015, during the Obama
administration.
Warrant: Other efforts have not curbed killing
Shesgreen, Deirdre. “With U.S. Bombs, Saudis ‘recklessly – and Likely Intentionally –
Killing Innocent Civilians’ in Yemen, Senator Says.” USA TODAY, 12 Sept. 2018,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/09/12/lawmakers-alarmed-
u-s-support-bombing-campaign-yemen/1283798002/.
Champion Briefs 85
The State Department on Wednesday tried to assuage the growing concerns by

sending Congress a “certification” stating that the governments of Saudi Arabia and
United Arab Emirates – which have led the bombing campaign with U.S. assistance –
are actively working to reduce civilian deaths and to limit damage to Yemen’s
infrastructure. But that State Department missive, which was mandated by Congress
as part of a broader defense bill passed in August, did not satisfy lawmakers. Some
said the State Department’s report did not match reality and suggested the U.S.
should end its military role in Yemen. “It is as clear as day that the Saudi-led coalition is
recklessly – and likely intentionally – killing innocent civilians and children, and they’re
doing it with U.S. bombs and so-called targeting assistance,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-
Conn., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “These certifications are
a farce, and we should all be ashamed that our government is turning a blind eye to
likely war crimes,” Murphy said. The State Department did not publicly release the
certification sent to Congress. In a statement, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the
Trump administration “has been clear that ending the conflict in Yemen is a national
security priority.”
Impact: Removing arms sales can put pressure to stop the killing of innocents
Correspondent, Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon. “Mattis Warns Saudi Arabia US Support in
Yemen ‘Not Unconditional.’” CNN, 28 Aug. 2018,
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/27/politics/us-saudi-arabia-warning-
yemen/index.html.
US Defense Secretary James Mattis warned Saudi Arabia on Tuesday that support for
the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen is "not unconditional" and urged them to "do
everything humanly possible to avoid any innocent loss of life.” His remarks came
after the Pentagon issued a warning to the Saudis that it is prepared to reduce military
Champion Briefs 86
and intelligence support for its campaign against rebels in neighboring Yemen if the
Saudis don't demonstrate they are attempting to limit civilian deaths in airstrikes
following a strike on a school bus that killed 40 children earlier this month. Two
officials directly familiar with the Pentagon's thinking tell CNN frustration is rising.
Mattis and General Joseph Votel, head of US military operations in the Middle East, are
particularly concerned that the US is supporting a Saudi-led campaign of airstrikes that
have killed large numbers of civilians. Human rights groups, some members of Congress
and the United Nations have expressed concern about Saudi Arabia's actions for months
to little avail. But after a series of recent strikes in which large numbers of civilians were
killed, the Pentagon, as well as the State Department, have now delivered direct
messages to the Saudis about limiting civilian casualties. "At what point is enough
enough?" one official remarked to CNN.
Analysis: This is a good argument because the impact hits home on an emotional level, which
allows you to convince the judge not only with logos but with pathos. This will help do implicit
weighing for the argument without the judge even noticing. On a logical level, it is also clearly
the most important impact in the round because you can’t gain a life back once you lose it.
Champion Briefs 87
A/2: Saudi Arabia uses these arms to kill innocent civilians
Response: Arms sales create good diplomatic relations
Warrant: Our relationship with Saudi Arabia helps to stop terrorism
Ryan, Missy. “As Crisis Intensifies, What’s at Stake in America’s Military Partnership with
Saudi Arabia?” Washington Post, 12 Oct. 2018,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-crisis-intensifies-
whats-at-stake-in-americas-military-partnership-with-saudi-
arabia/2018/10/12/3ce0994e-cd75-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html.
The president’s comments may say as much about his transactional view of foreign
relationships, elevating economic concerns over human rights, as they do about the
centrality of arms sales to the two countries’ defense relationship. For decades Saudi
Arabia has been an important American military partner in the Arab world, where its
status as the home to Islam’s holiest sites boosts its leadership credentials. Since the
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, the kingdom has played a critical
role in U.S. counterterrorism efforts, supplying the government with valuable
intelligence about extremist threats. Most significantly, Saudi Arabia has used
petrodollars to build up the Arab world’s most sophisticated military arsenal. With one
of the world’s largest military budgets, the kingdom boasts a large fleet of F-15 and
Tornado fighter jets, Apache helicopters and other advanced aircraft.
Warrant: Our relationship with Saudi Arabia helps create jobs
DeYoung, Karen. “For Trump, the Relationship with Saudi Arabia Is All about Money.”
Washington Post, 19 Nov. 2018,
Champion Briefs 88
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/for-trump-the-
relationship-with-saudi-arabia-is-all-about-money/2018/11/19/74a2bef8-ec28-
11e8-8679-934a2b33be52_story.html.
When President Trump talks about the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia, he rarely
mentions any Saudi role in achieving his stated objectives in the Middle East —
bringing Iran to heel, forging an Israeli-Palestinian peace, and vanquishing Islamist
terrorism. Instead, he mostly talks about how much money the Saudis are spending
here. “They give us a lot of jobs. They give us a lot of business,” Trump said Saturday
when asked about the CIA’s conclusion that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the
de facto Saudi leader, had ordered the killing of U.S.-based Saudi journalist Jamal
Khashoggi. “They have truly been a spectacular ally in terms of jobs and economic
development,” he said, referring primarily to Saudi arms purchases. “You know, I’m
president; I have to take a lot of things into consideration.”
Analysis: This is a good response because diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia can be used to
help save lives in other ways that are more profound, like treaties and helping in other regional
conflicts. This means that the benefits of alliance outweigh the short term harms of killing
innocent civilians.
Response: Supporting Saudi Arabia helps protect against Iran
Warrant: Iran could get nuclear weapons soon
Haltiwanger, John. “Here’s How Quickly Iran Could Build a Nuclear Weapon.” Business
Insider, 17 May 2018, https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-quickly-iran-
could-build-a-nuclear-weapon-2018-5.
Champion Briefs 89
He tweeted, "As of yesterday, Iran is one year from being able to build a weapon.
Now, all bets are off thanks to Trump. The pace is now set in Tehran, not
Washington.” Before the deal, experts believed Iran had the technical capacity to
become a nuclear power and was perhaps only three to four months away from
developing the required bomb fuel. Iran had roughly 20,000 centrifuges prior to the
pact, but the agreement saw that number go down to approximately 6,000, and it was
primarily only allowed to keep outdated models. If Tehran reneges on the deal —
which includes other global powers as well — now that Trump has pulled the US out if
it, Iran could probably get the roughly 13,000 centrifuges it dismantled and put into
storage up and running rather quickly, effectively jump-starting its nuclear program.
Based on what was known about Iran's nuclear capabilities before the deal this means it
could theoretically develop bomb fuel within months — if it chooses to go this route.
Some experts have suggested it would take Iran at least eight to 10 months to get to this
point.
Warrant: Arms sales signal to Iran that the US will not be intimidated
Jerome, Deborah. “Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?” Council on Foreign Relations, 24
Sept. 2010, https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea.
Fourth, the proposed arms sale package creates a level of interdependence that gives
both the current Saudi government as well as Saudi governments for the next fifteen
to twenty years a strong incentive to work with the United States. Saudi Arabia will
need continuing support from the United States during the entire lifecycle of every
major system sold, and no future Saudi government can ignore this fact. Moreover, the
sales are large in dollar terms, but not in terms of numbers of weapons. This will not be
some kind of massive build-up. Saudi Arabia had an air force with some 417 combat
aircraft in 2000, and it now has only 219. The Saudi F-15 buy will not even restore the
force to 2000 numbers. It will take some three to five years to deliver and put fully in
Champion Briefs 90
service, replace some eighty-seven obsolete F-5A/Bs and F-5EIIs that were in service in
2000, and help Saudi Arabia compensate for the serious performance limits on 107
aging Tornados still in service. On the face of it, the proposed arms deal with Saudi
Arabia is a win-win situation: The United States gets jobs at a time of high
unemployment; Saudi Arabia gets to bolster its military and further cement its
relationship with its main protector; and Israel gets the promise of equipment superior
to anything transferred to the Saudis. Best of all, say the deal’s advocates, it sends a
signal to Iran that the United States and its Persian Gulf allies will not be intimidated.
Analysis: This is a good response because you can argue that a rogue Iran is much worse than a
rogue Saudi Arabia, which means that it is on net still better to support Saudi Arabia, even if it
comes at the expense of a few civilian casualties in the process.
Champion Briefs 91
PRO: Arms sales make US complicit in war crimes

Argument: Arms sales to Saudi Arabia are being used for war crimes in Yemen, which the US is
morally complicit in and which likely violate international law.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is using American arms deals and American refueling services to kill
civilians in mass quantities in Yemen.
William Hartung. “There’s Less than Meets the Eye in Trump’s Saudi Arms Deal” May 22
2017. Defense One. https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/05/theres-less-
meets-eye-trumps-saudi-arms-deal/138055/
“But whatever the size of Trump’s big deal, it raises serious human rights and foreign
policy concerns. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, put it best when he expressed
concern about the regional impact of the deal: “What do we have to gain by going in so
enthusiastically with the Sunnis against the Shia in their fight for power in the Middle
East? This isn’t our fight, and history suggests the U.S. military meddling in the Middle
East ends up great for U.S. military contractors, but pretty miserable for everyone else.”
The administration’s decision to revive a deal for precision-guided munitions to Saudi
Arabia is particularly troubling, as these are the kind of weapons that have been used
in Riyadh’s brutal bombing campaign in Yemen, which has killed thousands of civilians
in strikes that independent human rights groups like Amnesty International and
Human Rights Watch have suggested could be war crimes—crimes in which the United
States may be complicit, given their provision of arms and refueling services for the
Saudi bombing campaign.”
Warrant: Arms sales to Saudi Arabia have allowed the country to perpetuate extensive violations
of human rights in Yemen.
Champion Briefs 92
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain, “Report of the HRC on the impact
of arms transfers on human rights”.
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/RuleOfLaw/ArmsTransfers/American
sDemocracyAndHumanRightsInBahrain.pdf
“Arms transfers to Saudi Arabia negatively impact the enjoyment of human rights.
This is particularly the case in regard to Saudi Arabia’s ongoing involvement in the
conflict in Yemen. Saudi Arabia has led an international coalition of armed
forcesfighting in Yemen since March 2015. The coalition has the backing of the United
States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK), which have both supplied Saudi Arabia, and
other members of the coalition, with military goods including combat aircraft, bombs,
assault weapons, and ammunition. The UK has provided more than £3 billion of arms to
Saudi Arabia since the onset of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in Yemen.1 The US has
provided close to $3 billion to Saudi Arabia to replenish its weaponry “damaged or used
up in Yemen” over the same period, while providing more $115 billion in arms transfers
to Saudi Arabia since 2009.2 The Saudiled coalition has used these weapons to attack
residential areas. The Saudi-led coalition has consistently engaged in practices that
violate international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including
the unlawful attack on homes, refugee camps, markets, hospitals, schools, civilian
businesses, and mosques.3 Human Rights Watch (HRW) has documented 61 airstrikes
carried out by the Saudi-led coalition that it believes may violate international law. 4
As of 25 January 2017, the UK Ministry of Defence was “tracking” 252 possible coalition
violations of international humanitarian law.5 A number of these attacks have been
carried out using bombs supplied by the US and UK. In addition to using weapons
supplied through arms transfers, the US has supplied more than half of Saudi Arabia’s
300+ combat capable aircraft. These include the F-15S fighter jet, which has played a
central role in the Saudi bombing campaign.6 UK-supplied Tornado aircraft, of which
Saudi Arabia has 69, have played a similarly important role.7 The influx of these
weapons and their use in Yemen has led to consistent violations of the right to life, the
Champion Briefs 93
right an adequate standard of living, including medical care, the right to education,
and the right to work.”
Warrant: By supplying the weapons used by Saudi Arabia in unlawful strikes, the United States is
making itself complicit with and party to these war crimes.
Human Rights Watch. “Yemen: US-Made Bombs Used in Unlawful Airstrikes” Dec 8
2016. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/08/yemen-us-made-bombs-used-
unlawful-airstrikes
“The Saudi Arabia-led coalition killed several dozen civilians in three apparently
unlawful airstrikes in September and October 2016, Human Rights Watch said today.
The coalition’s use of United States-supplied weapons in two of the strikes, including a
bomb delivered to Saudi Arabia well into the conflict, puts the US at risk of complicity
in unlawful attacks. The attacks underscore the urgent need for foreign governments to
suspend all arms sales to Saudi Arabia and for the United Nations human rights office to
send additional investigators to Yemen to carry out credible investigations of alleged
abuses by the coalition, the Houthis and their allies, and all other parties to the conflict,
Human Rights Watch said. “Saudi-led forces are bombing civilians in Yemen with newly
supplied US weapons,” said Priyanka Motaparthy, senior emergencies researcher at
Human Rights Watch. “The Obama administration is running out of time to completely
suspend US arms sales to Saudi Arabia or be forever linked to Yemen wartime
atrocities.””
Impact: Full compliance to the Arms Trade Treaty is the best pathway toward ending the conflict
in Yemen.
Thomas Potter. “Racing to War: Arms Competitions, Military Spending, and the
Tendency of Nations to Engage in Armed Conflict. Gettysburg College. Fall 2016.
Champion Briefs 94
https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.
com/&httpsredir=1&article=1542&context=student_scholarship
“One of the tragedies of the war in Yemen is that there is no military solution possible
in the current Yemini conflict. This finding has been repeatedly documented by UN
agencies and humanitarian organizations. And yet, the constant supply of arms to Yemen
continues to prolong hostilities. Yemen will only achieve peace through international
diplomacy and the political will of all the Yemeni parties involved. The ATT offers an
avenue for all State Parties to reexamine and reassess their arms exports to coalition
members. In this way, they could live up to the spirit and objective of the ATT, which is to
prevent human suffering. Some governments, including those of the Netherlands,
Finland, Norway, the Flemish and Waloon regions of Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, and
Germany have stopped all sales to parties involved in Yemen. But these changes, although
welcome, have come too slowly. In the meantime, the human cost has only gone up in
Yemen. The Yemen war has served as another stark reminder that the approach to the
global arms trade cannot be business-as-usual. State Parties of the ATT should strive for
full compliance to ensure the maximum effectiveness of the ATT. Complying can only
help to bring an end to the ever-worsening humanitarian crisis in Yemen.”
Analysis: Not only are the war crimes committed by Saudi Arabia gruesome and life-ending, they
are also in violation of international law. By continuing to send weapons to Saudi Arabia, the US
violates the Arms Trade Treaty which can is most likely be successful if full compliance is in effect
with it. Otherwise, the likelihood of achieving a political or diplomatic solution to the Yemen crisis
is extremely low.
Champion Briefs 95
A/2: Arms sales make US complicit in war crimes
Answer: Although there are some issues with how the Yemen intervention is occurring, ending
arms sales is unnecessary and likely counterproductive.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has decreased military spending for a second year in a row, signaling that
the war in Yemen is drawing down.
Alaa Shahine, Dec 18 2018, “Saudis to Cut Military Spending as Trump Touts Weapons
Sales”, Bloomberg News, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-
12/trump-organization-answers-on-foreign-payments-irk-key-democrat
“Saudi Arabia will cut military spending for a second straight year in 2019, when
education is set to overtake it as the budget’s biggest item, according to official
projections published on Tuesday. The Saudi armed forces are among the world’s leading
weapons buyers, a role often cited by President Donald Trump to defend America’s close
alliance with the kingdom. But they’ll have 12 percent less to spend next year, after
getting allocated a budget of 191 billion riyals ($51 billion). Spending on education will
also drop, by 6 percent to 193 billion riyals. Overall outlays are projected to rise 7 percent
as the kingdom boosts capital investment. The cutbacks on defense may reflect
expectations that Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen is drawing to a close. Earlier on Tuesday,
King Salman didn’t include soldiers fighting in the war in his decision to renew a package
of cost-of-living allowances for another year. Spending Shift Saudi Arabia's overall
outlays are rising, but the two biggest budget items saw cuts Source: Saudi Ministry of
Finance Note: Actual spending figures for 2017, projected spending for 2018/19 Saudi
Arabia heads a coalition that intervened in Yemen in 2015 to support the government
against pro-Iranian rebels. The two sides agreed to a ceasefire in a key port city this
month, in a rare step toward ending what has turned into the world’s worst
humanitarian disaster.”
Champion Briefs 96
Warrant: The Saudi Arabian presence in Yemen is necessary to prevent human rights abuses by
the current government in Yemen.
Madyson Posey “Ending U.S. Military Support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen Would Trigger
Dangerous Consequences”. Dec 6 2018. The Heritage Foundation.
https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/ending-us-military-support-
saudi-arabia-yemen-would-trigger-dangerous
“The killing of Khashoggi was certainly abhorrent, but ending U.S. support for the
multinational coalition in Yemen is not the proper solution. It risks dangerously
conflating two separate issues and would inevitably trigger unintended consequences
that would undermine U.S. national security interests in the region. Senators must
remember that Saudi Arabia is not the only belligerent in Yemen. A cutoff of U.S.
support would also hurt the elected and internationally recognized government of
Yemen, which was ousted by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in 2015 in a bloody coup that
violated a U.N.-brokered ceasefire. Withdrawing U.S. support would also harm the
interests of other U.S. allies fighting in Yemen, including the United Arab Emirates and
Bahrain. The war in Yemen is complex. Those who rush to blame Saudi Arabia entirely
for the suffering of the Yemeni people ignore the war crimes and heavy-handed
treatment meted out by the Houthis to their opponents and the ruthless role that Iran
plays in supporting the Houthi Ansar Allah (“Supporters of Allah”) movement, a Shia
Islamist extremist group. The Saudis are rightly criticized for not doing more to prevent
civilian casualties as they target Ansar Allah positions. But the Houthis should not be
given a free pass for deliberately targeting civilian targets in Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates with increasingly sophisticated Iranian ballistic missiles.”
Impact: Arms sales to Saudi Arabia give us substantial leverage over the country, which we can
use to request reforms in how they use their military power.
Champion Briefs 97
David French. " Arms Deals Give Leverage to America, Not the Saudis." National Review.
Oct 18 2018. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/arms-deals-give-america-
leverage-not-the-saudis/
“Of all the talking points justifying American inaction in response to the indescribably
brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, perhaps the worst is the idea that the Saudis
somehow have leverage over America because of their large-scale arms deals. The
truth is exactly the reverse. The Saudi military is highly dependent on advanced
American weaponry. American F-15s comprise close to half the Saudi fighter force, and
the Saudi variant of the F-15E Strike Eagle represents a substantial portion of the air
force’s striking power. On land, the Saudi army is dependent almost exclusively on
American M1 Abrams tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. They can’t just waltz
over to a different country and transform their armed forces — not without suffering
enormous setbacks in readiness and effectiveness during a years-long transition. A
fundamental reality of arms deals is that a major arms purchase essentially locks the
purchasing nation in a dependent posture for training, spare parts, and technical
upgrades. Indeed, one of the reasons for engaging in an arms transaction — aside
from the economic benefit — is that the transaction gives America enormous power
over the national defense of the purchasing nation. You buy our weapons, and we
gain power over you. Well, we gain potential power. The question is whether we have
the will to exercise that power.”
Analysis: Given that Saudi Arabian involvement in Yemen appears to be declining, it does not
make sense to completely stop backing Saudi Arabia in the country. Instead, through our arms
sales, we actually gain leverage over Saudi Arabia and a potential pathway to ask them to reform
how their military acts in the region. Choosing to stop backing Saudi Arabia would instead allow
the Houthi government to essentially gain control of Yemen, which would provoke more human
rights violations in the long-run as an abusive regime takes control of the country.
Champion Briefs 98
PRO: Arms sales create a risk of an arms race

Argument: Arms sales to Saudi Arabia create an imbalance of power in the Middle East and create
the risk of worsening a regional arms race.
Warrant: The massive quantities of weapons imports by Saudi Arabia create an imbalance of
power and a trend of rising arms purchases in the Middle East.
Stasa Salacanin. “The Growing Arms Deals in the Gulf: Existential Need or Fear Politics?”
Jan 22 2018. AlJazeera Center for Studies.
http://studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports/2018/01/growing-arms-deals-gulf-
existential-fear-politics-180122092552473.html
“This militarisation trend in the Gulf region implies another comparison of the arms
spending ratio vis-à-vis the respective gross domestic product (GDP) in these
countries. Seven Middle Eastern countries are among the top 12 countries with the
highest proportion of their GDP on military spending in the world. In 2015, Oman was
on the top of the list with 14.58 percent of its GDP, followed by Saudi Arabia with 13.50
percent. The 2016 data show a similar pattern: Oman with 16.75% and Saudi Arabia
with 10.41%, firmly holding the two top positions. Diederik Cops, an expert on
international conventional arms transfers at the Flemish Peace Institute in Belgium,
considers the growing arms expenditure a direct result of the involvement of some
countries in the Yemeni conflict. Another reason derives from the perceived sense of
insecurity in the region and the perceived existential needs of those countries. Cops
also argues that Saudi Arabia, and its allies namely the United Arab Emirates, aspire to
be the regional power, which implies a strong military capability vis-à-vis Iran. Most
Gulf States consider the benefits of the Nuclear Agreement signed between Iran and six
Western nations a potential threat to the regional balance of power. This Iranian-
Western nuclear detente has become another precursor of the military speeding in the
region. Still, business is booming for the world’s major arms exporters. U.S. exports
Champion Briefs 99
grew by 21 percent. Highly sophisticated systems accounted for part of that increase,
including missile defense systems and long-range airborne intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance systems.”
Warrant: Accelerating arms purchases in Saudi Arabia have prompted counterbalancing on

behalf of Iran.
Aaron Miller. Oct 12 2018, “The U.S.-Saudi Relationship Is Out of Control”. The Atlantic,
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/trump-fault-jamal-
khashoggis-disappearance/572797/
“While the world’s attention remains focused on the nuclear brinkmanship and missile
launches on the Korean peninsula, the Middle Eastern arms race, pitting Saudi Arabia
and its ally the United Arab Emirates against Iran has been slowly heating up and
could soon reach a boiling point. The spending boom among the gulf states, the Saudis
and Emiratis chief among them, has accelerated in recent years but is not a wholly
new phenomenon. Careful observation can discern that increases in Saudi military
spending appear to be linked to moments when the House of Saud feels threatened by
the growing power of its Persian neighbor. Following the Islamic revolution in Iran in
1979—a moment that also coincided with the takeover of the Great Mosque in Mecca
by extremists and Saudi financial involvement in repelling the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan—the Saudis embarked on a spending spree, buying sophisticated weapons
from Western countries in the billions. Saudi Arabia has long feared that its leading
position in the Muslim world would be threatened after the clerics took power in Iran.
Between 1978 and 1982, Saudi Arabia doubled its military expenditures. Again, in 2003,
after the collapse of the Saddam Hussein government in Iraq and signs that it would be
replaced by a Shia-led government far friendlier to Iran, Riyadh again boosted its arms
purchases. Between 2003 and 2015, the Saudis quadrupled their military budget,
persisting in large outlays despite the effect that depressed petroleum prices have had
Champion Briefs 100

on other areas of the government’s budget. With Saudi Arabia feeling new pressures
from Iran in recent years, particularly in Yemen, it’s no surprise that its leaders have
once again opened the coffers to acquire the latest in military hardware.”
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is reliant on US technology to maintain their military dominance in the
region and switching to other sources would be difficult.
Terrence Guay. “Arms sales to Saudi Arabia give Trump all the leverage he needs in
Khashoggi affair” Oct 19 2018. The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-give-trump-all-the-
leverage-he-needs-in-khashoggi-affair-104998
“While it’s true that Russia and China are indeed major exporters of armaments, the
claim that U.S. weapons can easily be replaced by other suppliers is not – at least not
in the short term. First, once a country is “locked in” to a specific kind of weapons
system, such as planes, tanks or naval vessels, the cost to switch to a different supplier
can be huge. Military personnel must be retrained on new equipment, spare parts need
to be replaced, and operational changes may be necessary. After being so reliant on
U.S. weapons systems for decades, the transition costs to buy from another country
could be prohibitive even for oil-rich Saudi Arabia. The second problem with Trump’s
argument is that armaments from Russia, China or elsewhere are simply not as
sophisticated as U.S. weapons, which is why they are usually cheaper – though the
quality gap is quickly decreasing. To maintain its military superiority in the Middle East,
Saudi Arabia has opted to purchase virtually all of its weapons from American and
European companies.”
Impact: Arms races are empirically shown to be a large predictor and precursor to instability and
violence.
Champion Briefs 101

“Overall, it seems clear that nations are at increased risk for war and global tension by
engaging in higher levels of military spending in the form of arms races. It is also clear
that military spending can, but not often, have no correlation with the hypothesis, as
increased military spending following the war on terror was not characteristic of an arms
race. In light of these conclusions, I agree with the many scholars arguing that war and
conflict occur much easier when there is an arms buildup. In light of the factors, as
Wallace argues, “It is difficult to argue that arms races play no role in the process of
leading to the onset of war.” (Wallace 1979) Indeed, arms buildups may not always lead
to war, but they certainly seem to play an unavoidably major part. Massive military
spending meant to counteract an adversary nearly always has the negative effect of
simultaneously raising the necessary equipment or technology for destructive conflict
and heightening tensions, which provides the ingredients necessary to initiate violent
conflict; in this scenario, whether or not war actually occurs isn’t even relevant in light of
the damage already done by buildups.”
Analysis: As Saudi Arabian builds up its military, other countries in the region (especially Iran)
attempt to counterbalance Saudi Arabian military might by building up their own militaries.
Cutting out arms sales from the US would substantially hinder Saudi Arabian attempts to
strengthen their own military, in turn preventing a dangerous arms race that could turn the
Middle East into a powder keg.
Champion Briefs 102

A/2: Arms sales create a risk of an arms race
Answer: Saudi Arabian arms purchases are not the primary driver of an arms race and other countries
would be building up their arms regardless.
Warrant: Iran is pursuing a domestic military build-up, which is creating domestic instability on its own.
Marwan Asmar, April 30 2018, “Iran spurs regional arms race”, Gulf News,
https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/iran-spurs-regional-arms-race-1.2214288
“President Hassan Rouhani was quoted as saying Iran “would produce or acquire any weapons
we need” without the approval of the world, which is a clear snub to the world powers. “We
are surrounded by aggressive world powers who intervene in the region’s affairs in defiance of
international law and invade countries without the consent of the UN and against its charter,”
he said. But he quickly sought to allay the concerns of the states in the region, saying: “Our
weapons are not against you. It’s for deterrence.” The regional powers don’t seem to have taken
in by the talk of deterrence, fully aware of Iran’s expansionist ambitions. Tehran has repeatedly
sought to spread its influence in the region, so the Arab states are very wary of its designs. Israel
had started the arms race in the Middle East long ago, and Iran has only accelerated the
proliferation of weapons in the region. Iran’s arsenal and its hegemony has forced Saudi Arabia
to buy weapons to ward off the threat. Israel upset the balance of power in the region with huge
handouts of money and weapons from the United States. Iran, not to be undone, beefed up its
military hardware with domestic production. Global sanctions over its nuclear research didn’t
hold back Tehran, which used its oil wealth spread its tentacles in the region. Hezbollah in
Lebanon, various factions in Iraq, President Bashar Al Assad in Syria and the Al Houthis in Yemen
benefited enormously from Iran’s weapons largesse. The result is instability in the region.”
Warrant: Allowing a unilateral build-up of the military by Iran is no better than allowing the two
countries to balance against each other.
Champion Briefs 103

“Massive military spending meant to counteract an adversary nearly always has the
negative effect of simultaneously raising the necessary equipment or technology for
destructive conflict and heightening tensions, which provides the ingredients necessary
to initiate violent conflict; in this scenario, whether or not war actually occurs isn’t even
relevant in light of the damage already done by buildups. Unfortunately, there is no
real solution to this problem. Since unilateral arms buildups only embolden a nation
to attack by altering the balance of power, as what occurred with Germany during the
1930’s, it seems necessary for nations to always counteract this possibility by building
up arms of their own. As the international system is anarchical at heart, it is impossible
to build the trust necessary to achieve meaningful arms reduction. While this is a
pessimistic reality, it is still the most important lesson of this research: While high
military spending can and does contribute to war, it is hard to reduce arms spending
from present levels to avoid becoming a weaker nation. As Thucydides once rightfully
stated, the strong will always do as they will at the expense of the weak, and reducing
military strength will surely condemn nations to fall from their perch at the top and be
exposed to the whims of the world.”
Impact: An arms race actually makes conflict less likely compared to only one country building up their
armaments because it makes the cost of conflict far greater.
Paul Diehl of the Journal of Peace Research. "Arms races and escalation: a closer look."
Journal of Peace Research 20.3 (1983): 205-212.
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/68822/10.1177_002
23433830?sequence=2
Champion Briefs 104

“The determination of a mutual military buildup or its absence for each dispute was
combined with the outcome of that dispute and the aggregated results are presented in
Table II. No meaningful covariation exists here between mutual military buildups and
dispute escalation. Only 25 % of the disputes which were preceded by a mutual
military buildup escalated to war, while almost 77% of the major power wars
constituting this sample population were preceded by periods in which there was no
incidence of joint and rapid spending increases by the protagonists. Of the three
disputes which fit the escalation hypothesis, one is World War I and the other two led to
the Second World War. However, even these cases raise questions about the impact of
mutual arms buildup on the outbreak of war. There were five other disputes prior to
World War II which were preceded by this type of buildup and yet did not escalate to
war. This suggests that the cases which support the escalation model might only be the
product of a spurious association. Overall, it appears that most serious disputes do not
involve previous dual military spending increases and most serious disputes do not
escalate to war; but there does not seem to be any connection between these facts. The
Yule’s Q value is .36 indicating a much weaker positive relationship than Wallace
reported. However, the more conservative 0 coefficient is only .11 and the Chi-square
value is not significant at any meaningful level.”
Analysis: The alternative to allowing an arms race to occur is that Iran builds up its weapons unilaterally,
which would likely be far worse for regional stability. Instead, allowing Saudi Arabia to counteract against
Iranian aggression is more likely to maintain the current balance of power in the region. Ultimately, teams
should frame the debate by stating that Iran is a far greater threat to United States national security
interests than Saudi Arabia, and in the affirmative world Iran grows dominant over Saudi Arabia.
Champion Briefs 105

PRO: Arms sales weaken Saudi Arabian governance

Argument: Arms sales to Saudi Arabia strengthen the military regime in Saudi Arabia and help to
fortify an abusive and authoritarian government.
Warrant: Saudi Arabian government is one of the most authoritarian in the world, with a
profound history of human rights abuses.
Jeffrey Fields. “Saudi Arabia is a repressive regime – and so are a lot of US allies” Oct 22
2018. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/saudi-arabia-is-a-
repressive-regime-and-so-are-a-lot-of-us-allies-105106
“The alleged assassination of Khashoggi by Saudi operatives may seem surprising

because of the 31-year-old crown prince’s reputation as a moderate reformer. Salman
has made newsworthy changes in the conservative Arab kingdom, allowing women to
drive, combating corruption and curtailing some powers of the religious police. Still,
Saudi Arabia remains one of the world’s most authoritarian regimes. Women must
have the consent of a male guardian to enroll in college, look for a job or travel. They
cannot swim in public or try on clothes when shopping. The Saudi government also
routinely arrests people without judicial review, according to Human Rights Watch.
Citizens can be executed for nonviolent drug crimes, often in public. Forty-eight
people were beheaded in the first four months of 2018 alone. Saudi Arabia ranks just
above North Korea on political rights, civil liberties and other measures of freedom,
according to the democracy watchdog Freedom House.”
Warrant: Bowing to the government of Saudi Arabia emboldens their abusive and authoritarian
stance.
Champion Briefs 106

Aaron Miller. Oct 12 2018, “The U.S.-Saudi Relationship Is Out of Control”. The Atlantic,
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/trump-fault-jamal-
khashoggis-disappearance/572797/
“Possible Saudi involvement in the disappearance—and alleged murder—of the Saudi

journalist Jamal Khashoggi presents the U.S.-Saudi relationship with its greatest crisis
since 9/11. If the Saudis are proven guilty of this heinous crime, it should change
everything about the United States’ long-standing relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Regrettably, it probably won’t. The administration’s identification with the 33-year-old
crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, as a modernizer determined to open up the
kingdom and tame its religious extremism has now been undermined by a crueler
reality—that of a ruthless, reckless, and impulsive leader willing to repress and silence
his critics at home and abroad. Whatever happened to Khashoggi is first and foremost
on the Saudis. But in kowtowing to Riyadh in a fanciful effort to make it the
centerpiece of U.S. strategy in the Middle East, the Trump administration has
emboldened MbS, as the crown prince is known; given him a sense of invincibility; and
encouraged him to believe there are no consequences for his reckless actions. And it is
likely, unless confronted with incontrovertible evidence of Saudi responsibility for
Khashoggi’s death or serious pressure from Congress, the president would be reluctant
to impose those consequences even now.”
Warrant: Empirically, military aid to countries is known to worsen human rights abuses and
entrench authoritarianism.
Gibb,Arthur, “Arms for Reforms: The Effectiveness of U.S. Military Assistance at

Encouraging Human Rights Reforms”, The University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, 2010. http://ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/docview/750059427?accountid=14677.
Champion Briefs 107

“The findings of the study, however, are disappointing for those who are seeking evidence
of American policy makers’ commitment to the promotion of human rights. Across all
time periods evaluated, except for the years following 9/11, military aid demonstrated a
consistent and statistically significant negative effect on human rights in recipient
countries. While the smaller negative effect of military aid on human rights after 1989
compared to the Cold War years lends some support to our hypothesis and the greater
importance of human rights outside of a competitive structural dynamic, the lack of a
positive relationship even in the 1990s indicates either that military aid is an ineffective
tool to influence human rights policy, or that policy makers do not use it as such even
at times when it should be effective. There are at least three possible inferences to be
drawn from the statistical results. The first is that U.S. military aid actually encourages
human rights abuses by recipient regimes. During the Cold War, this can be understood
in the context of American support for regimes fighting communist or socialist
insurgencies, regimes whose abusive practices were overlooked by the U.S. in light of the
policy of Containment and fear of the spread of communism. The negative results in the
post-Cold War era are troubling, however. Given the emphasis placed on human rights
practices by both the legislation governing military aid and the military aid programs
themselves, the fact that recipients of military aid still appear to get worse rather than
better after receiving American equipment and training provides strong ammunition for
critics of military aid.”
Impact: By empowering the Saudi Arabian military, the government becomes more able to shut
down and hinder progress toward democratization.
Savage, Jesse Dillon. “Military Size and the Effectiveness of Democracy Assistance.”
Journal of Conflict Resolution. Feb 26 2014.
https://jessedsavage.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/demassist_feb25.pdf
Champion Briefs 108

“Countries interested in the promotion of political development often provide aid in the
form of democracy assistance. However, some regimes resist these attempts to promote
democracy, introducing repressive measures to counteract their effectiveness. Hence,
democracy assistance sometimes has the unintended consequence of curtailing
democracy. This paper explains how the size of the targeted regime’s military determines
the effectiveness of democracy assistance, and why it can sometimes result in lower levels
of political freedom. Large militaries, often holding a privileged position in authoritarian
regimes, will be threatened by political liberalization and its associated redistribution
of resources. They will thus work with the regime to limit the effect of democracy
assistance, while their size makes this repression more feasible. In states with smaller
militaries regimes have less incentive and capacity for repression, and democracy
assistance is more successful at empowering democratic opposition. Cross-national
statistical analysis of USAID democracy assistance supports the argument.”
Analysis: This argument targets how the Saudi Arabian government’s use of repressive force is a
disaster for human rights in Saudi Arabia, resulting in executions and the subjugation of women.
Selling weapons is shown empirically to perpetuate and exacerbate those issues rather than
improve them. Cutting off arms sales to Saudi Arabia over their human rights abuses would
properly punish the government and limit the strength of their military.
Champion Briefs 109

A/2: Arms sales weaken Saudi Arabian governance
Answer: Saudi Arabia government is already improving and arms sales give us a key bargaining chip to
influence its governmental development.
Warrant: Weapons sales give the US substantial leverage in dealing with Saudi Arabia, which is
necessary to promote reform.
Trevor Thrall. “Risky Business: The Role of Arms Sales in U.S. Foreign Policy”, Cato
Institute, March 13 2018, https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-
analysis/risky-business-role-arms-sales-us-foreign-policy
“American influence is thought to be most potent in cases where the United States
provides a nation with a large share of its military capabilities. In the wake of U.S.
pressure to halt Israeli defense exports to China, for example, an Israeli official
acknowledged, “If the United States, which provides Israel with $2 billion in annual
military aid, demands that we will not sell anything to China — then we won’t. If the
Americans decide we should not be selling arms to other countries as well — Israel will
have no choice but to comply.”41 The United States has used arms sales to try to
encourage states to vote with the United States at the UN, to support or adopt pro-
Western and pro-U.S. foreign policies, to convince Egypt and Israel to accept peace
accords, and to gain access to military bases in places such as Greece, Turkey, Kenya,
Somalia, Oman, and the Philippines. After the Cold War, the United States also sought
to tie arms transfers to human rights and democratization efforts in client states.42”
Impact: The status of women is improving in Saudi Arabia, with numerous substantial changes to women’s
rights in the country.
Champion Briefs 110

Benjamin Bishin. “The big gains for women’s rights in the Middle East, explained”. July
23 2018. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2018/07/23/womens-rights-are-advancing-in-the-middle-east-this-
explains-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ada937759446
“Saudi Arabia, under the initiative of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, gave
women in the kingdom the right to drive. Saudi Arabia has been the only country in the
world to ban women from driving — an internationally recognized symbol of unequal
status. Along with the ability to drive has come new rights and freedoms: the ability to
join the military, work in intelligence services and attend sporting events and
concerts. A senior cleric even commented that women should not be required to wear
the abaya. Saudi Arabia is in good company. Across the Middle East and North Africa,
countries have been upgrading women’s rights. Since 2011, nearly every country in
North Africa has adopted a gender quota, in which parties are required to nominate a
minimum percentage of women as candidates for office, to increase women’s
representation in politics. In Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq, Yemen and Morocco, women can now
pass on citizenship to their children, and Lebanon may soon join this list. The region has
seen widespread repeal of laws letting rapists escape punishment if they marry their
victims. And nine countries adopted laws against domestic violence.”
Analysis: The first piece of evidence provides affirmation that other factors contribute strongly to
authoritarianism in Saudi Arabia, and that ending sales alone would do little to promote governance. The
second piece of evidence demonstrates how the US can use weapon sales as a bargaining chip to influence
policy, whereas we would lose that leverage if we ended all sales. Finally, the last piece of evidence shows
that Saudi Arabia is becoming less restrictive over time.
Champion Briefs 111

PRO: Arms Sales Embolden Saudi Arabia

Argument: By selling arms to Saudi Arabia, the United States makes the state more aggressive
which has negative consequences.
Warrant: American weapons are key to Saudi Arabian military effectiveness and they would be
mostly unable to transition away from American artillery.
“While it’s true that Russia and China are indeed major exporters of armaments, the
claim that U.S. weapons can easily be replaced by other suppliers is not – at least not
in the short term. First, once a country is “locked in” to a specific kind of weapons
system, such as planes, tanks or naval vessels, the cost to switch to a different supplier
can be huge. Military personnel must be retrained on new equipment, spare parts need
to be replaced, and operational changes may be necessary. After being so reliant on
U.S. weapons systems for decades, the transition costs to buy from another country
could be prohibitive even for oil-rich Saudi Arabia. The second problem with Trump’s
argument is that armaments from Russia, China or elsewhere are simply not as
sophisticated as U.S. weapons, which is why they are usually cheaper – though the
quality gap is quickly decreasing. To maintain its military superiority in the Middle East,
Saudi Arabia has opted to purchase virtually all of its weapons from American and
European companies.”
Warrant: Saudi Arabian war tactics in Yemen are highly reliant on US machinery and weapons
and are indiscriminate.
Champion Briefs 112

Derek Watkins. Dec 27 2018, “Saudi Strikes, American Bombs, Yemeni Suffering”. New
York Times,
arabia-war-tactics-yemen-humanitarian-crisis.html
“The Saudis and their chief ally, the United Arab Emirates, fight principally from the
air. Armed with American-made warplanes and bombs, they have carried out
thousands of airstrikes on Houthi targets but also on hospitals, weddings and funerals.
Their pilots typically fly high to avoid enemy fire, which reduces the accuracy of strikes.
They regularly ignore a voluminous no-strike list. The United States backed the
coalition from the start with sales of weapons and bombs, midair refueling of
warplanes over Yemen, and intelligence. After the funeral attack in 2016 killed 155
people, the Obama administration blocked sales of precision-guided munitions. But
the United States continued to refuel coalition warplanes. In May 2017, the Trump
administration overturned the missile ban, amid a new weapons deal. Mr. Trump said
he did not want to lose the benefit of multibillion-dollar arms sales for the American
economy. But the war was ravaging the economy of Yemen.”
Warrant: Empirically, selling weapons to countries increases their rates of brutality and civilian
killings.
Omelicheva, Mariya, et al. “Military Aid and Human Rights: Assessing the Impact of U.S.
Security Assistance Programs.” Political Science Quarterly.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/polq.12575
“As can be seen from the results, the total amount of dollars spent on all U.S. Foreign
Military and Department of Defense Engagement Activities is negatively associated with
the number of civilian atrocities, whereas the total number of trainees participating in all
U.S. programs shows a positive correlation with the number of civilian casualties. Both
Champion Briefs 113

results are statistically significant (p < .05). A positive correlation between the number of
trainees and civilian deaths attributed to the militaries of states that received U.S. military
assistance reflects the fact that some of the largest security assistance programs, which
are also positively correlated with civilian casualties, were included in the total. FMS, for
example, one of the largest programs in terms of both total dollars spent and total
number of trainees, is positively associated with civilian casualties. In other words, states
that buy higher amounts of U.S. defense equipment as well as services and training
associated with those sales are more likely to experience higher numbers of civilian
deaths by the state military and police. This is hardly surprising; the majority of U.S. arms
sales in recent years went to the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council and Iraq.
Saudi Arabia, for example, is one of the largest customers of the U.S. defense industry,
with$29 billion of arms sales in 2012 alone. The total amount of U.S. military aid, too,
has a positive and statistically significant impact on civilian deaths, suggesting that
greater amounts of overall U.S. military assistance are associated with more civilian
atrocities committed by state security forces. Holding all other variables constant, the
expected number of deaths increases by a factor of 1.06 (calculated as the exponential of
the co efficient 0.06) for each unit increase in U.S.military assistance (measured in logged
U.S. dollars per capita). The total dollars spent on FMF and students participating in the
FMF program also show a positive and statistically significant impact on the civilian
deaths. These findings are consistent across the models, where these measures are
lagged by one and two years, respectively.”
Impact: Saudi Arabia is creating and perpetuating a humanitarian crisis in Yemen primarily
through the use of US weaponry, endangering millions.
Zeeshan Aleem. “Saudi Arabia’s new blockade is starving Yemen " 22 Nov 2017. Vox.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/22/16680392/saudi-arabia-yemen-
blockade-famine-casualties
Champion Briefs 114

“"Saudi Arabia’s new blockade of Yemen is threatening to exacerbate what the United
Nations has deemed the “worst humanitarian crisis in the world.” For more than two and
a half years, Saudi Arabia has spearheaded a brutal military operation in Yemen in
support of its exiled government, which was ousted from power after Iranian-backed
Houthi rebels seized control of the capital, Sanaa, in 2014. That military campaign —
which is getting significant US funding, logistical support, and arms — has caused
enormous suffering in what was the poorest nation in the Arab world even before the
conflict broke out. The Saudi Arabia-led operations, which have included various
restrictions on Yemen’s airspace and seaports, have caused the deaths of over 5,000
civilians, more than 20 percent of whom are children. They’ve helped cause the worst
outbreak of cholera in modern history. And they’ve contributed to a malnutrition crisis
of colossal proportions: Close to 80 percent of Yemen’s population lacks reliable access
to food, and the United Nations estimates that 7 million of the country’s population of
28 million people are facing famine.
Analysis: This is a simple and straightforward argument that shows how the US backing the Saudi
Arabian military creates a more aggressive and capable state. After showing how US military
technology is critical for the Saudi Arabian army and makes their military only more powerful,
teams can then show how Saudi Arabian aggression is a threat to the lives of millions and regional
stability.
Champion Briefs 115

A/2: Arms Sales Embolden Saudi Arabia
Answer: Saudi Arabia generally does not use its military for purposes that are counter to United States
interests, and cutting off weapons sales would create unintended consequences.
Warrant: Saudi Arabian actions in Yemen, although not perfect, are in line generally with United States
interests in the region.
Madyson Posey “Ending U.S. Military Support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen Would Trigger
Dangerous Consequences”. Dec 6 2018. The Heritage Foundation.
https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/ending-us-military-support-
saudi-arabia-yemen-would-trigger-dangerous
“The killing of Khashoggi was certainly abhorrent, but ending U.S. support for the
multinational coalition in Yemen is not the proper solution. It risks dangerously
conflating two separate issues and would inevitably trigger unintended consequences
that would undermine U.S. national security interests in the region. Senators must
remember that Saudi Arabia is not the only belligerent in Yemen. A cutoff of U.S.
support would also hurt the elected and internationally recognized government of
Yemen, which was ousted by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in 2015 in a bloody coup that
violated a U.N.-brokered ceasefire. Withdrawing U.S. support would also harm the
interests of other U.S. allies fighting in Yemen, including the United Arab Emirates and
Bahrain. The war in Yemen is complex. Those who rush to blame Saudi Arabia entirely
for the suffering of the Yemeni people ignore the war crimes and heavy-handed
treatment meted out by the Houthis to their opponents and the ruthless role that Iran
plays in supporting the Houthi Ansar Allah (“Supporters of Allah”) movement, a Shia
Islamist extremist group. The Saudis are rightly criticized for not doing more to prevent
civilian casualties as they target Ansar Allah positions. But the Houthis should not be
Champion Briefs 116

given a free pass for deliberately targeting civilian targets in Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates with increasingly sophisticated Iranian ballistic missiles.”
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has generally acted in line with the strategic and political goals of the
United States, so their aggression is not necessarily bad.
Gregory Gause. “Saudi Arabia in the New Middle East”, Council on Foreign Relations’
Center for Preventive Action, Dec 2011, https://www.cfr.org/report/saudi-
arabia-new-middle-east
“The United States' relationship with Saudi Arabia has been one of the cornerstones of
U.S. policy in the Middle East for decades. Despite their substantial differences in
history, culture, and governance, the two countries have generally agreed on
important political and economic issues and have often relied on each other to secure
mutual aims. The 1990-91 Gulf War is perhaps the most obvious example, but their
ongoing cooperation on maintaining regional stability, moderating the global oil
market, and pursuing terrorists should not be downplayed. Yet for all the relationship's
importance, it is increasingly imperiled by mistrust and misunderstanding. One major
question is Saudi Arabia's stability. In this Council Special Report, sponsored by the
Center for Preventive Action, F. Gregory Gause III first explores the foundations of
Riyadh's present stability and potential sources of future unrest. It is difficult not to
notice that Saudi Arabia avoided significant upheaval during the political uprisings that
swept the Middle East in 2011, despite sharing many of the social and economic
problems of Egypt, Yemen, and Libya. But unlike their counterparts in Cairo, Sanaa, and
Tripoli, Riyadh's leadership was able to maintain order in large part by increasing public
spending on housing and salaries, relying on loyal and well-equipped security forces,
and utilizing its extensive patronage networks. The divisions within the political
opposition also helped the government's cause.”
Champion Briefs 117

Impact: Ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia would make one of the United States’ most critical
geopolitical partners considerably less powerful and useful.
Missy Ryan, “As crisis intensifies, what’s at stake in America’s military partnership with
Saudi Arabia?”,
October 12 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-
crisis-intensifies-whats-at-stake-in-americas-military-partnership-with-saudi-
arabia/2018/10/12/3ce0994e-cd75-11e8-a3e6-
44daa3d35ede_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a654d78dfb57
“For decades Saudi Arabia has been an important American military partner in the
Arab world, where its status as the home to Islam’s holiest sites boosts its leadership
credentials. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, the
kingdom has played a critical role in U.S. counterterrorism efforts, supplying the
government with valuable intelligence about extremist threats. Most significantly,
Saudi Arabia has used petrodollars to build up the Arab world’s most sophisticated
military arsenal. With one of the world’s largest military budgets, the kingdom boasts a
large fleet of F-15 and Tornado fighter jets, Apache helicopters and other advanced
aircraft. About $14.5 billion in major sales have been concluded with Saudi Arabia since
Trump became president, but much or all of that was initiated before he took office.”
Analysis: It’s important to clarify that what may seem like wanton acts of aggression on behalf of Saudi
Arabia are actually generally in line with US foreign policy goals, and the above evidence demonstrates
that Saudi Arabia generally cooperates with the United States on most major issues. Negative teams
should try to paint the picture of Saudi Arabia as a useful and productive ally for the United States rather
than a regional threat to stability.
Champion Briefs 118

PRO: Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia weaken US soft power
Argument: By ending arms sales, the United States demonstrates that allied states cannot act
maliciously without consequence, thereby increasing soft power.
Warrant: Ending arms sales signals that the United States is not morally flexible and that
countries seeking our business need to respect our standards.
Emily Weber. "The United States Should End Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia”. Nov 20 2018.
http://www.iar-gwu.org/content/united-states-should-end-arms-sales-saudi-
arabia
“In 2016 the United States canceled a million-dollar weapons sale to Saudi Arabia as a
result of a Saudi-led coalition airstrike on a funeral that killed over a hundred Yemeni
civilians. Even though the United States had already sold Saudi Arabia millions of
dollars’ worth of weapons by that point, the canceled sale demonstrated
consequences for the Saudis’ complete disregard of civilian casualties. It also showed
that a country’s ability to pay for weapons was not the only factor the United States
would consider when selling arms. The United States should continue suspending
current arms sales and abandon any promise of future arms sales to Saudi Arabia while
this proxy war in Yemen continues. The United States should consider foreign arms sales
on a case by case basis, instead of offering a “blank check” to a government without
considering their foreign policy and human rights record. U.S. supporters of arms deals
with Saudi Arabia argue that the revenue generated from these sales are too beneficial
to end. However, the arms sales and continued conflict create larger and farther-
reaching costs. The U.S. government should redirect its involvement towards
humanitarian actions in Yemen. This policy would help to stabilize Yemen and
enhance U.S. soft power in the region.”
Champion Briefs 119

Warrant: States who receive military aid from the United States are, empirically, not any more
cooperative because we typically do not enforce our standards.
Sullivan, P., Tessman, B., and Li, X. (2011), US Military Aid and Recipient State
Cooperation. Foreign Policy Analysis,
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bf4e/e4125c4d788098a9fc326cb32856b49df5
b7.pdf
“In several ways, the Reverse Leverage model was quite accurate: (i) states receiving
military aid from the United States exhibit lower levels of cooperation than states that
do not receive military aid, (ii) in the population of all states, higher levels of military
aid appear to produce more defiant behavior, and (iii) the United States does not
punish defiance with reductions in aid or reward greater cooperation with increases in
military aid. Together, these results suggest that US military assistance is allocated for
reasons that are largely independent of overall recipient state behavior toward the
United States. The Reverse Leverage model contends that military aid is delivered to
states that the United States depends on for security reasons. Realizing their leverage
over Washington, states that receive high amounts of aid are actually more able to
engage in uncooperative behavior than are states that the United States does not
depend so heavily upon. We attempted to test for the effects of an aid recipient’s
‘‘security value’’ directly by comparing US allies to nonallies. Consistent with the
Reverse Leverage model, we find that states with a defensive alliance with the United
States are more likely to receive US military aid but less likely to respond to aid by
increasing their cooperation with American preferences.”
Warrant: Following the killing of Khashoggi, choosing to continue selling arms to Saudi Arabia
demonstrates that the United States is not committed to morality.
Champion Briefs 120

“That is why the U.S. has significant leverage in this aspect of the relationship. Any Saudi
threat to retaliate against a ban on U.S. arms sales by buying weapons from countries that
have not raised concerns about the Khashoggi disappearance would not be credible. And
is probably why, despite worries in the White House, such a threat has not yet been made.
Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has developed a global reputation as a moral
authority championing human rights. Yes, there have been many times when realpolitik
took priority. But despite these moments, the U.S. managed also to maintain its authority
by advocating respect for human rights as a global norm during the Cold War, and within
many repressive regimes ever since. With Khashoggi, Trump is choosing to give up that
mantle completely by showing his priority is purely economic, regardless of the impact
on the United States’ global reputation. Such a bald-faced strategy, in my view, sells
American values short and weakens U.S. global credibility.”
Impact: Saudi Arabia is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and aligning ourselves with
them only perpetuates extremism.
Ben Norton. “Saudi Arabia funds and exports Islamic extremism: The truth behind the
toxic U.S. relationship with the theocratic monarchy" 7 Jan 2017. Salon.
https://www.salon.com/2016/01/06/saudi_arabia_funds_and_exports_islamic_
extremism_the_truth_behind_the_toxic_u_s_relationship_with_the_theocratic_
nation/
“"In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with
the other," Daoud continued. "This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price:
preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that
Champion Briefs 121

the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes,
spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that
Daesh feeds on." Since the November Paris attacks, in which 130 people were massacred
in a series of bombings and shootings for which ISIS claimed responsibility, the West has
constantly spoken of the importance of fighting extremism. At the same time, however,
the U.S., U.K., France, and other Western nations have continued supporting the Saudi
regime that fuels such extremism. Saudi political dissidents like Turki al-Hamad have
constantly argued this point. In a TV interview, al-Hamad insisted the religious extremism
propagated by the Saudi monarchy "serves as fuel for ISIS." "You can see [in ISIS videos]
the volunteers in Syria ripping up their Saudi passports," al-Hamad said. "In order to
stop ISIS, you must first dry up this ideology at the source. Otherwise you are cutting the
grass, but leaving the roots. You have to take out the roots," he added. In the wake of the
November 2015 Paris attacks, scholar Yousaf Butt stressed that "the fountainhead of
Islamic extremism that promotes and legitimizes such violence lies with the fanatical
'Wahhabi' strain of Islam centered in Saudi Arabia." "If the world wants to tamp down
and eliminate such violent extremism, it must confront this primary host and
facilitator," Butt warned.
Analysis: This argument can powerfully demonstrate that the US alliance and partnership with
Saudi Arabia is antithetical to our national security and foreign policy goals. Instead, it legitimizes
an authoritarian, belligerent, and terrorist-sponsoring state that ultimately undermines United
States soft power and strategy. By cutting off arms sales, we can demonstrate that our allies need
to align with our strategic and moral goals rather no matter how much money they are willing to
spend.
Champion Briefs 122

A/2: Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia weaken US soft power
Answer: Our alliance with Saudi Arabia gives us an invaluable strategic and geographic partner in the
Middle East.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is at the centerpiece of many relationships between non-Muslim and Muslim
societies. Generally, Saudi Arabia works alongside the United States to achieve political and foreign policy
goals, rather than being counterproductive.
Council on Foreign Relations. “Saudi Arabia Remains Indispensable U.S. Ally, Argues New
CFR Book”. Jan 13 2012. https://www.cfr.org/news-releases/saudi-arabia-
remains-indispensable-us-ally-argues-new-cfr-book
“On the Muslim world, "Saudi Arabia’s historic primacy in Islam makes it indispensable
to a constructive relationship between the non-Muslim West and the Muslim world,"
he concludes. "The kingdom is a central arena in the worldwide struggle within Islam
between forces of tradition and xenophobia, which oppose all change and wish to turn
backward, and advocates of modernization who believe that Islam must adapt to a
changing world and can do so without surrendering its ideals and values." On Iran, the
Saudis have "made no secret of their anxiety about the prospect of such a rival
acquiring nuclear weapons, but they also recognize that for all their wealth they
cannot do much to prevent it." The prospect of a nuclear Iran will only make the
alliance with the United States stronger, he argues. If there is one certainty about
policy change in Saudi Arabia, "it is that the rules governing female behavior will be
relaxed and that women will find new opportunities in the country’s workplace and in
its social and economic life," he writes. "Saudi Arabia is coming to the collective
realization that it can no longer afford to pump vast resources into educating women at
enormous expense without recovering the constructive energy and economic
productivity of those educated graduates," Lippman explains. Basing his work on
Champion Briefs 123

interviews and field research conducted in the kingdom from 2008 through 2011 while
an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Lippman, now at the
Middle East Institute, dissects the central paradox of the U.S.-Saudi relationship: both
countries need each other, yet they both remain fundamentally different. A related
Council Special Report by Gregory Gause, Saudi Arabia in the New Middle East, echoes
many of these findings. He suggests that there is no more unlikely U.S. ally than Saudi
Arabia, yet despite divergent views on policy, "the two countries have generally
agreed on important political and economic issues and have often relied on each other
to secure mutual aims.".”
Warrant: Saudi Arabia’s geographic location and wealth of natural resources makes it a
powerful and crucial ally for the US.
Spross, Jeff. “America is going to pay a lot of interest soon. But don't fear a debt crisis.”,
The Week, Oct 1 2018, https://theweek.com/articles/798463/america-going-
pay-lot-interest-soon-but-dont-fear-debt-crisis
“This power over oil makes Saudi Arabia one of the key lynchpins in the global
economy, as swings in the global economy since the 1970s have been strongly
influenced by the price of oil (Moran 1981, Amuzegar 2001, Faucon and Said 201,
Gause and Jones 2012, and Rifkin 2011). Both the Kingdom’s special role in the global
economy and the geo-politics of the Middle East has brought it into a critical relation
with the US. While there has been much to disrupt this relation, still the relation is
strongly set in soft bilaterialism. The interests of the two nations have accorded on
many fronts, often due to the willingness of the Saudis to accommodate American
foreign policy goals. The Kingdom has consistently interceded in OPEC arrangements
to prevent ruinous energy prices for the West, accommodated American security
interests in allowing American air bases and military passage for its operations, served
Champion Briefs 124

effectively as a balancer in the Middle East, offered its services to quell regional
friction in peace initiatives pushed by the US, and taken a strong stand against
terrorism (Gause 2002).”
Impact: Arms sales are crucial to maintaining the bilateral relationship between America and Saudi
Arabia, along with its strategic benefits.
Committee for a Responsible Budget, “Could Faster Growth Solve Our Debt Woes?”,
October 28 2013, http://www.crfb.org/blogs/could-faster-growth-solve-our-
debt-woes
“It’s a cold financial calculation: Saudi money for U.S.-made weaponry results in American jobs.
This is President Donald Trump’s rationale in dismissing calls in Congress to halt future arms
sales to Saudi Arabia following the mysterious disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi
journalist and American resident. “I don’t like the concept of stopping an investment of $110
billion into the United States,” Trump said last week. “All they’re going to do is say, ‘That’s OK.
We don’t have to buy it from Boeing. We don’t have to buy it from Lockheed. We don’t have to
buy it from Raytheon and all these great companies. We’ll buy it from Russia. We’ll buy it from
China,” he said. The 75-year alliance between the two nations has been built on a simple
arrangement: American demand for Saudi oil and Saudi demand for American firepower. It is a
relationship that is not easily unwound as a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators found out earlier
this year when they moved to cut off military assistance to the Saudis in their war against Houthi
rebels in Yemen. The United Nations has said that more half of the more than 10,000 people
who have been killed in the three-year old war are civilians, and the lives of millions are
potentially at risk from famine. The U.S. government has provided intelligence, munitions and
midair refueling to Saudi warplanes since operations kicked off in 2015. Attempts by American
lawmakers to stop that aid have thus far failed.”
Analysis: Analytically, teams can argue further that ending arms sales entirely would force the United
States to lose a major bargaining chip with Saudi Arabia, and that maintaining our relationship to some
degree is preferable to get them to agree to policy changes. The above pieces of evidence demonstrate
Champion Briefs 125

that Saudi Arabia is generally willing to cooperate with America on foreign policy goals and that arms sales
are critical for that relationship to continue. Without Saudi Arabian cooperation, achieving foreign policy
goals in the Middle East and elsewhere would be much more difficult.
Champion Briefs 126

PRO: The US should end its arms sales because of Saudi

Arabia’s actions in Yemen
Argument: The United States should end its arms sales to remove its contribution to the war in
Yemen.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is committing atrocities in Yemen
Human Rights Watch, "What Military Target Was in My Brother’s House", 11/26/15,
https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/11/26/what-military-target-was-my-
brothers-house/unlawful-coalition-airstrikes-yemen
On March 26, 2015, a coalition of Arab countries led by Saudi Arabia, with United
States participation, began a military campaign in Yemen that has so far resulted in
the deaths of more than 2,500 civilians, mostly by coalition airstrikes. This report
documents 10 coalition airstrikes from April through August that appear to have
violated international humanitarian law, the laws of war. The laws of war are intended
to minimize harm to civilians and other non-combatants during armed conflict. While
not all civilian casualties indicate laws-of-war violations, attacks that deliberately target
civilians, that do not discriminate between civilians and combatants, or that cause
disproportionate loss of civilian life or property, are all unlawful. Individuals who
commit such violations with criminal intent are responsible for war crimes. In the
cases discussed in this report, which caused at least 309 civilian deaths and wounded at
least 414 civilians, Human Rights Watch found either no evident military target or that
the attack failed to distinguish civilians from military objectives. Under international
law, states have an obligation to investigate alleged violations of the laws of war, and
appropriately punish those individuals responsible for war crimes. Human Rights
Champion Briefs 127

Watch is unaware of any investigations by Saudi Arabia or other coalition members in

these or other reported cases.
Warrant: The United States is supplying weapons for this conflict
Patrick Wilcken, The Guardian, "Britain and the US must stop fuelling the bloody
Saudi ‘war on Yemen", 03/20/18, https://www.theguardian.com/commentis
free/2018/mar/20/yemen-arms-saudi-arabia
The end of this week marks three tragedy-filled years for the people of Yemen, who
have suffered from the Saudi-led military coalition’s devastating – and often
indiscriminate – bombing of their country. Fleets of fighter jets, the bulk from Saudi
Arabia itself, have wreaked havoc on an impoverished country, with thousands of
airstrikes on targets including hospitals, markets, homes, factories and funeral halls.
Thousands of civilians have been killed, thousands more horribly injured. Collapsed
infrastructure, coupled with a partial blockade, have deprived most of the population of
clean water and proper healthcare, unleashing the worst cholera outbreak in modern
history. Despite all this, western countries, led by the US and the UK, have supplied
the Saudi-led coalition with huge amounts of advanced military equipment,
facilitating a military campaign characterised by repeated violations of international
humanitarian law, including possible war crimes. This conflict has revealed in the
starkest possible terms the real cost of the lucrative global arms trade, not to mention
the challenge of implementing the UN arms trade treaty. Beyond the US and the UK,
many other countries – including France, Spain and Italy – profess their support for
human rights and adherence to the treaty while similarly lavishing hi-tech weaponry on
the Saudi coalition.
Warrant: The best way to condemn the crisis in Yemen is to stop arms sales
Champion Briefs 128

F. Brinley Bruton, NBC, "The U.S. wants the Yemen war to end. Will it stop selling arms
to Saudi Arabia?", 11/5/18, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-wants-
yemen-war-end-will-it-stop-selling-n929921
Washington supports Saudi Arabia and its ally, the United Arab Emirates, through
billions in arms sales. It also refuels their jets mid-air, provides training and shares
intelligence. So, if the U.S. wants to try to force the Saudis' hands, it has leverage. The
best way to force the Saudis to change their ways is to stop sending weapons,
according to Human Rights Watch’s Yemen researcher Kristine Beckerle. “You’ve gotten
so many violations already over the past three and a half years, so what Pompeo and
Mattis should be doing is saying, ‘These are the benchmarks. We’re going to hold up
weapons sales until you actually fulfill these tasks,’" she said, referring to the
apparent bombing of civilian sites by the coalition.
Impact: The children of Yemen have suffered the greatest consequences because of US arms
sales
Yuliya Talmazan, NBC, "Yemen crisis: Three stats that reveal the scale of world's worst
humanitarian crisis", 10/28/18, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/yemen-
crisis-three-stats-reveal-scale-world-s-worst-humanitarian-n923741
A total of almost 50,000 kids are believed to have perished from such causes during
2017, with a similar number expected this year, according to Save the Children and the
U.N. Save the Children spokesman Bhanu Bhatnagar called the situation in Yemen "a
stain on the world’s conscience." UNICEF's operation in Yemen estimates there are 1.8
million children currently facing malnutrition, including 400,000 who are severely
malnourished and at risk of death if not urgently treated. More than 8 million children
are cut off from regular access to basic water, sanitation and hygiene services.
Champion Briefs 129

Analysis: This argument is strategic because it outlines a concrete goal to ending arms sales.
Additionally, you could weigh this argument by arguing that no matter what the United States
should not be complicit in a conflict with human rights abuses of this proportion. For example,
this would work particularly against an economic or political leverage argument, as neither one
is relevant if the nation has to sacrifice its integrity.
Champion Briefs 130

A/2: The US should end its arms sales because of Saudi

Arabia’s actions in Yemen
Response: Saudi Arabia could upset the oil market if the US halted arms sales
Warrant: The nation has threatened to retaliate
Shawn Langlois, MarketWatch, "Call of the day: Don’t rule out $400 oil if the U.S. sanc
tions Saudi Arabia", 10/15/18, https://www.marketwatch.com/story/call-of-the-
day-dont-rule-out-400-oil-if-the-us-sanctions-saudi-arabia-2018-10-15
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, however, is said to still be planning to attend.
That flow of Saudi cash is apparently pretty hard to resist. Nevertheless, mounting
threats from around the world to punish Saudi Arabia, including the possibility of U.S.
sanctions, are rattling the oil-soaked nation and drawing sharp words in response.
“The Kingdom affirms its total rejection of any threats and attempts to undermine it,
whether by threatening to impose economic sanctions, using political pressures, or
repeating false accusation,” a government source reportedly told the official Saudi Press
Agency. “The Kingdom also affirms that if it receives any action, it will respond with
greater action.”
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has a particularly influential hold on the oil market
Tom DiChristopher, CNBC, "Why the market is suddenly concerned Saudi Arabia will
weaponize oil in Khashoggi dispute", 10/15/18,
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/15/saudi-statement-sparks-concern-the-
Champion Briefs 131

kingdom-will-weaponize-oil.html
Saudi Arabia produces about 10.5 million barrels of oil per day, equal to more than 10
percent of global crude demand. It exports about 7 million barrels a day of oil,
depending on the month. Given those figures, the kingdom is a central pillar of the
global oil market at any time. But its influence is especially pronounced right now.
Analysis: This is a good response because even if the US does hault arms sales, instead of
simply giving in and halting the conflict in Yemen, the Saudi government could live up to its
threats and disrupt the global oil market.
Response: Saudi Arabia is posturing to produce its own arms
Warrant: Outside criticism is pushing the country towards developing its own weapons industry
Stratfor, "Saudi Arabia Lays the Foundation for a Defense Industry of Its Own",
11/09/18, https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/saudi-arabia-defense-industry-
weapons-imports-vision2030
As Saudi Arabia pursues its regional interests, it has increasingly sought to insulate
itself from outside influence. To guard against dependence on arms imports, which
could subject it to political pressure, it has worked to build up the capabilities of its
own defense industry. This shift in philosophy comes as the kingdom's usual arms
suppliers increasingly reconsider the extent of their weapons trade with Riyadh
because of mounting casualties from Yemen's civil war and outrage over the apparent
murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Besides lessening dependence on foreign
weapons sources, a mature local defense industry could also play a key role in
diversifying the Saudi economy while Riyadh is working to ease its overreliance on
energy exports. If the Saudi defense sector can be successfully built out, it could provide
Champion Briefs 132

jobs for a large number of citizens and help address concerns about growing
unemployment.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is already receiving help in this endeavor from Russia
Glen Carey, Bloomberg, "Saudis Want to Make Their Own Weapons. Russia Is Eager to
Help", 03/02/18, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-
05/mcconnell-hunkers-down-on-the-sidelines-as-shutdown-grinds-on
In case they’re reluctant to do so, the Saudis are making it clear that they have other
options. They’re already planning to buy the Russian S-400 air-defense system, under
a deal that would let them manufacture related products at home. The prospect of
more such agreements is likely to alarm American policy makers, who worry about
losing ground to Russia and China in the Middle East.
Analysis: This is a good response because even if the US stops providing arms to Saudi Arabia
this only pushes them to develop their own arms industry even more. Additionally, this
postures them to get closer with American enemies like Russia.
Champion Briefs 133

PRO: The US should halt arms due to the UN Arms Treaty
Argument: The United States has a responsibility as a signatory of the UN treaty to halt arms
sales.
Warrant: The arms treaty holds arms exporters accountable for the actions of the countries
who purchase their arms
United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, "Arms Trade",

https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/att/
Governments remain central providers of security. This is their sovereign right and
responsibility, to be performed in conformity with the rule of law. To effectively execute
these tasks, their armed and security forces legitimately employ a range of weaponry,
which they acquire through national production or through import. Exporters and
importers need to ensure those weapons are transferred and stored safely, and not
end up in the wrong hands. Governments also have a responsibility to ensure public
safety and have a vested interest in providing human security and development to
their citizens. Therefore, ensuring that arms in private ownership do not enter illicit
circuits must be part of the equation for every country.
Warrant: War crimes are being reported in the conflict
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, "Yemen: United Na
tions Experts point to possible war crimes by parties to the conflict", 08/28/18,
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=2347
9
Champion Briefs 134

Information documented by the Group of Regional and International Eminent Experts

on Yemen strongly suggests that parties to the armed conflict have perpetrated, and
continue to perpetrate, violations and crimes under international law. The findings are
detailed in a 41-page report published on Tuesday by the Group Experts, which was
mandated by the United Nations Human Rights Council to carry out a comprehensive
examination of the human rights situation in the country. The Group of Experts’ report,
which covers the period from September 2014 to June 2018, analyses the main patterns
of violations and abuses of international human rights law, international humanitarian
law and international criminal law committed by parties to the conflict. The report also
identifies significant areas where violations and abuses may have been committed but
further investigation is required. Among their conclusions, the experts say individuals
in the Government of Yemen and the coalition, including Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates, and in the de facto authorities have committed acts that may, subject
to determination by an independent and competent court, amount to international
crimes.
Warrant: With knowledge of human rights abuses, signatories are supposed to halt weapons
sales
The Economist, "A UN treaty to regulate the global arms trade has little impact",
08/18/18, https://www.economist.com/international/2018/08/18/a-un-treaty-
to-regulate-the-global-arms-trade-has-little-impact
IF ALL—or even most—countries abided by the letter and spirit of the UN Arms Trade
Treaty (ATT), the world might be rather less grim. Governments that sign up are
supposed to halt exports of weapons if they have good reason to think they will be
used to flout international humanitarian law. That could cover both internal repression
and waging wars by inhumane methods.
Champion Briefs 135

Impact: The United States needs to adhere to the treaty to set a precedent for the rest of the
World
Anna Macdonald, The Guardian, "UN arms trade treaty can save many lives – if it is ro
bustly enforced", 09/25/14, https://www.theguardian.com/global-
development/poverty-matters/2014/sep/25/un-arms-trade-treaty-exports-sales
But this misses the point. Once the treaty enters into force and becomes binding
international law, it will create a strong deterrent for all countries – even those not a
party to it – to end uncontrolled arms transfers. It has happened before, for example,
following the development of the mine ban treaty and it will happen again. A
comprehensive treaty will help accelerate and develop a specific international norm,
which, over time, simply cannot be ignored – even by Moscow. This will not happen
overnight, but with proper enforcement by states that have ratified, it has the
potential to help transform the arms trade. The ATT will not be able to turn back the
clock. It cannot bring back lives lost already through armed violence. But, with robust
enforcement, it will prevent future suffering and save lives.
Analysis: This argument is helpful because it binds the United States to a treaty they have
already signed. Additionally, you could weigh this in the long term as how the judge should
want all countries to act when faced with knowledge of human rights abuses.
Champion Briefs 136

A/2: The US should halt arms due to the UN Arms Treaty
Response: Adhering to this treaty would violate national sovereignty.
Warrant: If other countries don’t adhere to the treaty, it’s an undue burden on US sovereignty.
Theodore Bromund and Steven Groves, The Heritage Foundation, "The U.N.'s Arms
Trade Treaty: A Dangerous Multilateral Mistake in the Making", 08/21/09,
https://www.heritage.org/report/the-uns-arms-trade-treaty-dangerous-
multilateral-mistake-the-making
Like most human rights treaties, the arms trade treaty is an example of aspirational
treaty making. It aspires to end practices in which most states engage. As these
practices are entirely under national control, the states are evidently uninterested in
abandoning them. Treaties are commitments by states to do or not to do certain
things. As such, treaties constrain the inherent right of self-government that is the
basis for national sovereignty. In the international context, such constraints can be
justified only by an agreement that other states will similarly constrain themselves.
That agreement is embodied in a treaty, but if other countries refuse to abide by it after
signing it, the constraint on the right of self-government--and U.S. sovereignty--
becomes one-sided. Because the behavior of the world's states testifies that they do
not want to curtail the practices that the treaty would seek to control, this treaty
would be an unbalanced and therefore illegitimate constraint on American
sovereignty.
Warrant: The US is blamed for any fault in the treaty
Theodore Bromund, The Heritage Foundation, "The U.S. Cannot Fix the U.N. Arms
Champion Briefs 137

Trade Treaty", 03/13/13, https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/the-

us-cannot-fix-the-un-arms-trade-treaty
Since the conference closed, the drumbeat of anti-U.S. criticism has continued. In
August, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report noting that U.S.
contracts for future deliveries of weapons reached a record high of $66.3 billion in 2011.
The U.S. celebrated these sales as “truly remarkable” and as an exemplary success for
the Administration’s “economic statecraft initiative.”[14] These sales were approved by
the U.S. export control system, which the ATT supposedly would leave unchanged. The
U.S. export control system is widely regarded as the most comprehensive in the world,
and the State Department calls it the “gold standard.”[15] Yet these facts did not stop
the Arms Control Association from implying that the U.S. had ruined the July
conference because of its position as “the world’s largest arms producer and
exporter.”[16] The CRS report’s assessment that Russia exported almost 8,000 surface-
to-air missiles to the developing world between 2008 and 2011 and that Italy had sold
three times more arms to Africa than the U.S. over the same period went
unremarked.[17] Instead, after The Washington Post published a stinging article on
China’s lack of responsibility in selling into the worst African conflicts, the Chinese
People’s Daily cited the CRS report as evidence for its contention that it was the U.S.
that lacked “any principles or responsibilities in arms export” and was responsible for
the failure of the ATT.[18]
Analysis: This is a good response because it shows that the treaty unduly burdens the United
States. Both because other states don’t follow it, and they continually blame the US for the
world’s problems through the treaty, it would not be in America’s best interest to adhere to the
treaty.
Champion Briefs 138

Response: Even if other countries were to adhere to the treaty, it’s not strict enough to make a
difference
Warrant: Nations set their own standards, and are not pushing for stricter guidelines
Ted Bromund, The Daily Signal, "5 Fundamental Flaws in the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty",
07/23/12, https://www.dailysignal.com/2012/07/23/5-fundamental-flaws-in-
the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty/
Any nation is free to set its own standards for the import, export, and transfer of
arms. If the nations of the world genuinely want higher standards, they can have them
right now. The fact that they do not means that many of them are not negotiating the
ATT in good faith. And that, in turn, means that the treaty will not constrain them
after they sign it. The idea that there is a vast illicit arms trade in the world is a myth:
Most arms trafficking is done with the knowledge and the connivance of governments,
which describe it as illicit to conceal their culpability (or, on occasion, their
administrative incapacity). The U.S. should never negotiate, support, sign, or ratify
treaties that are based fundamentally on a lie.
Warrant: The treaty is difficult to enforce, and thus, rarely applied.
Ben Knight, DW Akademie, "UN's Arms Trade Treaty 'too weak to make a difference'",
11/09/17, https://www.dw.com/en/uns-arms-trade-treaty-too-weak-to-make-a-
difference/a-40452550
Attending the third Conference of States Parties to the ATT was Amnesty's Rasha Abdul
Rahim, who explained that diplomats there still considered the treaty "in its infancy." "I
tend to agree that it's too early to tell what the full impact of the treaty is," she told DW.
"However, we are really concerned with the business-as-usual approach that we're
Champion Briefs 139

seeing with some state parties. We're frustrated that we're not seeing as robust and
transparent regulation of the arms trade as we would like." Andrew Smith, spokesman
for the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), said there had always been problems with
the ATT. "We aren't aware of any arms exports that have actually been stopped by the
ATT," he said. "It's evident that the treaty is too weak to make any meaningful
difference." But, as Amnesty's Rahim pointed out, "it's really difficult to tell" whether
the ATT has had any effect, because "when states don't authorize an arms transfer, they
don't usually give a reason for doing so." Several countries including Germany, which
ratified the ATT in 2014, have guidelines that the government is supposed to follow
when it approves weapons exports, but they remain just that – guidelines, not laws.
CAAT were skeptical because the major arms exporting countries had been getting
behind the ATT while maintaining, like Germany, that they already had robust arms
export controls. The treaty was also being championed by arms companies - not exactly
a sign that it was particularly tough. "But there are also major shortcomings in the treaty
itself," Smith of the CAAT said. "It's not entirely clear from reading it who would
enforce the rules or how they would be enforced, or what would happen to anyone
who broke them."
Analysis: This mitigates the impact of the argument as the treaty is only as strong as it is
enforceable. So, even if the United States adheres to the treaty and that puts pressure on other
countries, that does not change that there still isn’t much consequence if a country chooses not
to.
Champion Briefs 140

PRO: The United States should halt arms sales to punish Saudi
Arabia for the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi
Argument: The United States should halt arms sales because Saudi government officials
murdered an American journalist.
Warrant: A journalist was killed in the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul
BBC, "Jamal Khashoggi: All you need to know about Saudi journalist's death", 12/11/18,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45812399
On 2 October, Jamal Khashoggi, a well-known journalist and critic of the Saudi

government, walked into the country's consulate in Istanbul, where he was murdered.
Saudi Arabia's public prosecutor has said Khashoggi was killed inside the building on the
orders of a rogue intelligence officer. Turkish officials however say they have evidence,
including gruesome audio recordings, that the journalist was killed by a team of Saudi
agents on orders that came from the highest levels. His body has not yet been found.
The steady stream of disturbing allegations, along with the complex diplomatic
situation, means that it can be difficult to keep track of the full story. So here is what we
know about the case. Who was Jamal Khashoggi? As a prominent journalist, he covered
major stories including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the rise of Osama Bin
Laden for various Saudi news organisations. For decades, the 59-year-old was close to
the Saudi royal family and also served as an adviser to the government. But he fell out
of favour and went into self-imposed exile in the US last year. From there, he wrote a
monthly column in the Washington Post in which he criticised the policies of Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS. In his first column for the newspaper,
Khashoggi said he feared being arrested in an apparent crackdown on dissent overseen
by the prince since he became first in line to succeed his father, King Salman.
Champion Briefs 141

Warrant: The CIA conclude that the Saudi Crown Prince ordered the assassination
Shane Harris, Greg Miller and Josh Dawsey, The Washington Post, "CIA concludes
Saudi crown prince ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination", 11/16/18,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-concludes-saudi-
crown-prince-ordered-jamal-khashoggis-assassination/2018/11/16/98c89fe6-
e9b2-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?utm_term=.e9f2d2eec679
The CIA has concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the
assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul last month, contradicting the
Saudi government’s claims that he was not involved in the killing, according to people
familiar with the matter. The CIA’s assessment, in which officials have said they have
high confidence, is the most definitive to date linking Mohammed to the operation
and complicates the Trump administration’s efforts to preserve its relationship with a
close ally. A team of 15 Saudi agents flew to Istanbul on government aircraft in October
and killed Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate, where he had gone to pick up
documents that he needed for his planned marriage to a Turkish woman. In reaching its
conclusions, the CIA examined multiple sources of intelligence, including a phone call
that the prince’s brother Khalid bin Salman, the Saudi ambassador to the United States,
had with Khashoggi, according to the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity to discuss the intelligence. Khalid told Khashoggi, a contributing
columnist to The Washington Post, that he should go to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul
to retrieve the documents and gave him assurances that it would be safe to do so.
Warrant: This situation only reveals the extend of Saudi suppression and violence
Bethan McKernan and Julian Borger, The Guardian, "Khashoggi mourners demand jus
Champion Briefs 142

tice as Congress urges full US investigation", 10/20/18,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/khashoggi-mourners-
demand-true-justice-after-saudi-disclosures
At the consulate in Istanbul, TuranKışlakçı, president of the Arab Turkish Media

Association, said in a speech: “We want Jamal’s murderers to be punished … and
punishment also for the authority that gave the orders.” The deputy head of Turkey’s
ruling party, Numan Kurtulmuş, vowed that Turkey would “never allow a cover-up” of
the killing. “We don’t immediately blame anyone. But we won’t go along with leaving
details buried,” he said. Separately, a senior Turkish official told Reuters investigators
were close to finding out what happened to Khashoggi’s body. Police were searching
Belgrad forest, north of Istanbul, and farmland near Yalova, 55-mile drive south of the
city, after using CCTV footage to track two vehicles owned by the Saudi consulate after
Khashoggi was killed. Khashoggi’s fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, wrote in a tweet: “The heart
grieves, the eye tears, and with your separation we are saddened, my dear Jamal.”
Tawakkol Karman, a Yemeni Nobel peace prize laureate, told the Guardian: “Personally I
have lost a friend and adviser. But the world has lost an important voice and the Arab
Spring one of its most important defenders. “Saudi Arabia wanted to silence him
forever but instead he has become an international icon for freedom of expression.
This crime cannot go unpunished. Spilling his blood has only made the case stronger
against the cruelty and repression of Saudi Arabia.”
Impact: The international community will follow our lead
Annabelle Timsit, Quartz, "Despite the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, most countries con
tinue to sell arms to Saudi Arabia", 10/27/18,
https://qz.com/1440586/countries-keep-selling-arms-to-the-saudis-despite-
khashoggis-murder/
Champion Briefs 143

US allies could impose a significant financial penalty on Saudi Arabia—if they chose to
do so. The UK exported at least $1.4 billion worth of arms and equipment to Saudi
Arabia in 2017, according to The Washington Post , but this number is probably
underestimated, given the British government’s use of an opaque licensing system that
makes tracking arms sales more difficult. And in 2017, the French government approved
more than $14.7 billion of potential arms sales to the Saudis, and Germany authorized
exports worth about $290 million, according to the Post. It’s difficult to expect US allies
to lead the way when even the US is continuing to sell arms to the Saudis, despite the
fact that Khashoggi was a US resident, with three American children. Saudi Arabia has
been the single biggest buyer of US arms since 2013—by far. As such, President Trump
has repeatedly ruled out suspending arms exports to the kingdom, despite bipartisan
calls to do so, invoking the economic toll of cancelling what he insists is a $110 billion
arms deal with the Saudi government.
Analysis: This argument is strategic because it shows how Saudi Arabia’s undemocratic
government is harming American citizens as well. You could weigh this argument by asserting
that the United States can’t do nothing when presented with evidence that another leader
murdered an American citizen.
Champion Briefs 144

A/2: The United States should halt arms sales to punish Saudi
Arabia for the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi
Response: The Saudi Arabian government rejects any connection to the killing.
Warrant: The government reported that the objective of the mission was to bring the journalist
back to Saudi Arabia alive.
The Irish Times, "Saudi prosecutor distances crown prince from Khashoggi killing",
11/15/18, https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/saudi-
prosecutor-distances-crown-prince-from-khashoggi-killing-1.3698715
Saudi Arabia has absolved Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of any blame in the
killing of Jamal Khashoggi but admitted that the veteran journalist was drugged and his
body dismembered. As it struggles with its biggest diplomatic crisis in years, Riyadh said
on Thursday that it was seeking the death penalty for five of 11 suspects charged in
connection with the killing in the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul last month. The state
prosecutor said a team of Saudi officials were sent to the diplomatic mission on
October 2nd with the goal of negotiating with Khashoggi and convincing him to return
to the country. But a fight broke out between the team and the journalist, who was
injected with a sedative and given an overdose that caused his death. Khashoggi’s
body was then cut into pieces and moved outside the consulate with the help of a
collaborator, said Sheikh Shalaan al-Shalaan, the deputy attorney-general.
Warrant: The government also stated the operatives had gone rogue
Euan McKirdy, CNN, "Saudi foreign minister says killing of Khashoggi was 'tremendous
Champion Briefs 145

mistake'", 10/22/18, https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/21/middleeast/jamal-

khashoggi-international-pressure-builds-intl/index.html
Saudi Arabia Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir has said the killing of journalist Jamal
Khashoggi was a "tremendous mistake" and part of a rogue operation, adding that his
government would punish those responsible for his "murder." "The individuals who
did this did this outside the scope of their authority," he told Fox News on Sunday.
"There obviously was a tremendous mistake made, and what compounded the mistake
was the attempt to try to cover up. That is unacceptable in any government." Jubeir said
that Saudi Arabia was taking action to investigate how Khashoggi died and hold those
responsible accountable. "We are determined to uncover every stone. We are
determined to find out all the facts. And we are determined to punish those who are
responsible for this murder," he said.
Analysis: This is a good response because it would be unreasonable for the US government to
do something so drastic as to cut off all arms sales to Saudi Arabia if there was reasonable
doubt that the Saudi Arabian government had anything to do with the murder.
Response: Saudi Arabia is already being punished and making changes without US pressure
Warrant: Other countries are pressuring Saudi Arabia
Daniel Otis, CTV News, "As others condemn Saudi Arabia, Germany takes action",
10/23/18, https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/as-others-condemn-saudi-arabia-
germany-takes-action-1.4147222
France joined Germany and the U.K. in a joint Oct. 21 statement condemning
Khashoggi’s slaying. “Nothing can justify this killing and we condemn it in the
strongest possible terms,” the statement read. “The quality and significance of the
Champion Briefs 146

relationship we have with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia also rests with the respect we
have for the norms and values to which the Saudi authorities and us are jointly
committed under international law.” At an Oct. 22 press conference, French Foreign
Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian hinted at potential punitive measures over the Khashoggi
affair without elaborating on what they could be. France, Le Drian explained, is awaiting
results of further investigations into Khashoggi’s death before taking “necessary
measures, if required.”
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has already begun to punish those responsible
Kevin Sullivan, Loveday Morris, Tamer El-Ghobashy, MSN, "Saudi Arabia fires 5 top
officials, arrests 18 Saudis, saying Khashoggi was killed in fight at consulate",
10/20/18, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/saudi-arabia-fires-5-top-
officials-arrests-18-saudis-saying-khashoggi-was-killed-in-fight-at-consulate/ar-
BBOCzzO?amp%3Bpage=5
The announcement, which came in a tweet from the Saudi Foreign Ministry, said that an
initial investigation by the government’s general prosecutor found that the Saudi
journalist had been in discussions with people inside the consulate when a quarrel broke
out and escalated to a fatal fistfight. The Saudi government said it fired five top
officials and arrested 18 other Saudis as a result of the initial investigation. Those fired
included Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s adviser Saud al-Qahtani and deputy
intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri.
Analysis: This is a good response because it shows that the US halting arms sales is not the only
thing that can bring about a response from the Saudi government. Additionally, it emphasizes
that international condemnation alone has already been enough to get a reaction from the
nation.
Champion Briefs 147

PRO: Saudi Arabia needs to be punished for their many human

rights abuses
Argument: The United States should end its arms sales because Saudi Arabia commits many
human rights abuses.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia continues to repress their citizens
Kenneth Roth, World Report, "Saudi Arabia Events of 2017",

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/saudi-arabia
Saudi Arabia continued to repress pro-reform activists and peaceful dissidents. In early
2017, authorities arrested human rights activists Essam Koshak, Issa al-Nukheifi, Ali
Shaban, and Ahmed al-Musheikhis. Authorities eventually referred Koshak and al-
Nukheifi for trial in the country’s notorious Specialized Criminal Court, the country’s
counterterrorism tribunal, on charges solely related to their human rights work. Saudi
Arabia continues to use 2014 counterterrorism regulations to suppress political
expression and dissent. Over a dozen prominent activists convicted on charges arising
from their peaceful activities were serving long prison sentences. Prominent activist
Waleed Abu al-Khair continued to serve a 15-year sentence imposed by Saudi Arabia’s
Specialized Criminal Court that convicted him in 2014 on charges stemming solely from
his peaceful criticism in media interviews and on social media of human rights abuses.
Prominent blogger Raif Badawi served the fourth year of his 10-year sentence, but
authorities did not flog him in 2016 and 2017, as they previously did in January 2015.
Warrant: Selling arms to the Saudi government is more than an economic decision, it is an act
of political support.
Champion Briefs 148

Noha Aboueldahab, The Globe and Mail, "How can we defend human rights while sell
ing arms to Saudi Arabia?", 09/09/18,
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-how-can-we-defend-human-
rights-while-selling-arms-to-saudi-arabia/
“Arms deals are not merely a financial transaction. They are a powerful expression of
political support and partnership between two governments. When Stephen Harper
signed the $15-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia in 2014 – the largest contract in
Canada’s history – he attempted to justify the controversial deal by pointing to Saudi
Arabia as a partner in the fight against Islamic State. He also argued that cancelling the
contract would unjustly punish the 3,000 Canadian workers who manufacture the
weapons in London, Ont.” […] Regardless of whether Canadian weapons are actually
used in the war on Yemen or not, the fact that the Mr. Trudeau government continues
to defend this arms deal sends a very troubling message: Canada supports the
protection of human rights, only insofar as it does not harm Canada’s business
interests. One would be hard pressed to expect, then, that Saudi Arabia or any other
country would take Canada’s statements regarding human rights seriously.
Warrant: The best way to condemn the human rights abuses is to stop arms sales
Jonathan D. Caverley, The New York Times, "Want to Punish Saudi Arabia? Cut Off Its
Weapons Supply", 10/12/18,
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/saudi-arabia-arms-sales.html
If American officials really want to encourage a change in Saudi policy, they should
begin by looking at Saudi Arabia’s largest imports from the United States: weaponry.
Cutting off the flow of American arms to Saudi Arabia would be an effective way to
put pressure on Riyadh with little cost to the American economy or national security.
President Trump, however, is skeptical. “I don’t like stopping massive amounts of money
Champion Briefs 149

that’s being poured into our country,” he said on Thursday. “They are spending $110
billion on military equipment and on things that create jobs for this country.” This figure
is vastly inflated, but there’s a reason Mr. Trump is inclined to believe it. While the
amount of new deals approved under President Trump is closer to $20 billion, the
Saudi government has visibly linked itself as the foremost client of the
administration’s export push.
Impact: In order to protect America’s moral standing we must punish Saudi Arabia for their
illiberal actions
Hal Brands, Bloomberg, "Saudi Crisis Shows the U.S. Needs a New Way to Deal With
Dictators", 10/15/18, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-
15/khashoggi-crisis-shows-u-s-needs-new-way-to-deal-with-dictators
Yet neither should America do what the Trump administration often seems included to
do: Give its allies a green light to violate human rights and flout the rule of law. Doing so
simply gives incentive for further misdeeds. It erodes U.S. moral standing by leaving
Washington vulnerable to charges of selective morality and outright hypocrisy. And as
illiberalism spreads, it weakens the liberal ideological glue that helps bind the U.S. to
its closest allies; it creates ideological affinities between Washington's friends and its
rivals (just look at the warm relationship between Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s
strongman, Viktor Orban); it raises the longer-term dangers of serious domestic
instability and even revolution. One can hardly look at Turkey or Saudi Arabia today and
wonder whether harsh, autocratic rule is not driving up the likelihood of debilitating
internal strife. The U.S. must therefore exact a cost, measured but real, on the illiberal
actions of its allies. This could mean reducing — but not fully halting — arms sales,
speaking out more strongly against repressive behavior, and perhaps even excluding
quasi-authoritarian allies such as Hungary from NATO exercises. Also helpful would be
quiet but consistent advocacy of respect for basic human rights in bilateral diplomatic
Champion Briefs 150

discussions, and — where feasible — increased support for embattled democratic actors
through institutions such as the National Endowment for Democracy.
Analysis: This argument is strategic because it extends further than the current issues at hand
with Saudi Arabia. It allows you to stretch this topic to a moral question of how the United
States should act when faced with immoral allies. This could be easily weighed by arguing that
no matter the ends, the means of supporting an illiberal government are not justified.
Champion Briefs 151

A/2: Saudi Arabia needs to be punished for their many human

rights abuses
Response: Saudi Arabia is a critical ally in combatting Iran
Warrant: Iran is the largest threat to American interests
The Heritage Foundation, "Conclusion: Global Threat Level", 10/04/18, https://www.her

itage.org/military-strength/assessing-threats-us-vital-interests/conclusion-
global-threat-level
In the Middle East, Iran remains the state actor that is most hostile to American
interests. The 2019 Index assesses Iran’s behavior as “aggressive” and its capability as
“gathering.” In the years since publication of the 2015 Index, Iran has methodically
moved closer to becoming a nuclear power, and it continues to enhance its
capabilities relating to ICBMs, missile defense, and unmanned systems. Iran also
continues to perpetuate and exploit instability to expand its influence in the region—
both in its direct involvement in regional engagements and through its proxies,
particularly in Syria.
Warrant: Arm sales prevent a relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran
The National, "Iran lacks a strategy to counter Saudi influence: Chatham House",
09/13/18, https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/iran-lacks-a-strategy-to-
counter-saudi-influence-chatham-house-1.769970
Iran’s proposed route to regional harmony – the creation of a “security networking

structure where small and large states in the Persian Gulf contribute together to a
Champion Briefs 152

regional security framework – could be seen a “worthy goal” but has so far failed to
gain traction. But in light of President Trump’s support, Saudi Arabia has shown no
appetite for such engagement. It instead hopes that greater multilateral pressure on
Iran will weaken it and perhaps force it to abandon its support for proxy groups
throughout the region, including its support for Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian civil war,
its military support for the Houthis in the Yemen civil war, its ongoing relationship
with Lebanon’s Hezbollah and its relations with Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in
Iraq.
Analysis: This is a good response because you could weight that Iran is a bigger threat to United
States interests and morality. Additionally, this argument is strategic as, presumably, an alliance
between two countries known for their human rights abuses and suppression of their citizens
would likely make Saudi Arabia’s current actions worse.
Response: Saudi Arabia is a crucial ally in counter terrorism
Warrant: Saudi Arabia plays a critical role in counter terrorism efforts
US Department of State, "U.S. Security Cooperation With Saudi Arabia", 10/16/18,

https://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/2018/279540.htm
Saudi Arabia plays a crucial role in maintaining security in the Middle East, due to its
economic, political, and cultural importance and its strategic location. Given the
complex and dynamic security challenges facing the region, which include countering
violent extremism from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as well as other
extremist groups, the United States works with Saudi Arabia to support
counterterrorism efforts and our shared interest in regional stability. In addition,
building on the May 2017 Riyadh Summit, we are working to increase cooperation on
maritime security, military preparedness, arms transfers, and cybersecurity. As a result
Champion Briefs 153

of U.S. security cooperation, the Kingdom has foiled numerous terrorist attempts
against Saudi and foreign targets, and has been able to successfully deter external
attacks. The United States remains committed to providing the Saudi armed forces
with the equipment, training, and follow-on support necessary to protect Saudi
Arabia, and the region, from the destabilizing effects of terrorism, countering Iranian
influence, and other threats. Toward that end, the United States will continue to
collaborate with Saudi Arabia to improve training for special operations and
counterterrorism forces, integrate air and missile defense systems, strengthen cyber
defenses, and bolster maritime security.
Warrant: Saudi Arabian cooperation has thwarted many attacks
VOA, "US, Saudi Arabia Have Leverage on Each Other; Using It Has Costs", 10/16/18,
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-saudi-arabia-have-leverage-on-each-other-
using-it-has-costs/4616830.html
U.S. officials faulted Saudi Arabia for a slow response to al Qaeda after the Sept. 11,
2001 attacks on the United States, but much changed after bombers hit targets in
Riyadh in 2003, prompting a joint campaign that drove al Qaeda from the kingdom. U.S.
officials now regard Saudi cooperation on counter-terrorism as invaluable given the
human intelligence Saudi operatives provide by exploiting an unrivaled network of
tribal and family connections to infiltrate militant strongholds. Tipoffs from Riyadh
helped foil a planned suicide bomb attack on a plane over Detroit in 2009 and
revealed a bomb disguised as a printer cartridge loaded in Dubai onto a plane bound
for Chicago in October 2010.
Analysis: This is a good response because one could argue that human rights abuses would only
increase if the Middle East became further destabilized. Additionally, it would be persuasive to
Champion Briefs 154

argue that terrorist groups probably commit more human rights abuses than the Saudi Arabian
government, thus military cooperation to aid in combatting a greater evil is morally justified.
Champion Briefs 155

Con Arguments with Pro Responses February 2019
CON: Saudi Arabia checks Iranian Aggression
Argument: Saudi Arabia will prevent Iran from acting aggressively towards it neighbors.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is a key ally in Iran’s neighborhood.
Cordesman, Anthony. “Saudi Arabia is a critical American security partner in the Middle
East.” The Hill. 3/21/18. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/379542-saudi-
arabia-is-a-critical-american-security-partner-in-the-middle-east
Somewhere along the line, we seem to have forgotten that our strategy in the Middle
East is dependent on Saudi Arabia as our most important single security partner.
Israel’s security is certainly a key American concern, but it does not play an active role
in most of America’s ongoing military engagements in the region, in dealing with Iran,
or in a direct fight against violent extremist movements like ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Saudi Arabia’s role as a strategic partner has also been enhanced by the fact that Egypt
and Algeria are focused on their own internal stability and their roles in the region have
sharply diminished, and Iraq and Syria both must deal with major instability problems
and are at war. Our European allies have declining power projection capabilities, and
Turkey’s role in the region is increasingly problematic.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia relies on U.S weapons, needs us to check Iran.
Ivanova, Irina. “Saudi Arabia is America’s No.1 weapons customer. CBSNews. 10/13/18.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-buyer-of-u-s-weapons/
The U.S. remains the world's largest weapons exporter, a position it has held since the
late 1990s. Our biggest customer? Saudi Arabia. That business reality came to the
forefront this week in President Donald Trump's refusal to crack down on the kingdom
Champion Briefs 157

whose royal rulers have been accused of murdering a Saudi-born, U.S.-based dissident
journalist who disappeared after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The U.S.
sold a total of $55.6 billion of weapons worldwide in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30
— up 33 percent from the previous fiscal year, and a near record. In 2017, the U.S.
cleared some $18 billion in new Saudi arms deals. Mr. Trump has dismissed the idea of
suspending weapons sales to Saudi Arabia to punish its crown prince, Mohammad bin
Salman, for any involvement in the alleged murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. "I
don't like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States,"
Mr. Trump said this week.
Impact: Iranian aggression would be devastating for the middle east.
Hutchinson, Madyson. “Four Ways Iran is Destabilizing the Middle East.” Newsweek.
10/16/17. https://www.newsweek.com/four-ways-iran-destabilizing-middle-east-
685960
Proxy wars and undermining of U.S. partners

Iran has a long history of backing rebel groups and undermining established regional
governments.In Yemen, Iran is seeking to weaken Saudi Arabia’s influence by
supporting the Houthi rebels against Saudi and Yemeni forces and against a Saudi-led
Arab expeditionary force. The Houthis have carried out attacks on U.S. and U.S.-allied
ships in the Red Sea with Iranian-supplied weapons. Iran even threatened to take
military action against Saudi Arabia
Smuggling of weapons and soldiers
Iran was able to capitalize on Iraq’s fight against ISIS and the instability that resulted. In
particular, it has created transportation and logistical infrastructure to move soldiers
and weapons through Iraq to its proxy forces in Syria and Lebanon. Iran is doing the
same in Yemen. One U.S. officer noted that Iran has provided Houthi fighters with a
Champion Briefs 158

deadly arsenal of weaponry that has even been used to attack U.S.-allied ships in the
Red Sea.Iran has also recruited thousands of Afghan refugees and deployed them as
armed volunteer forces to fight alongside President Bashar al-Assad’s troops in Syria.
Analysis: Iran has proven itself to be somewhat dangerous and unpredictable. Saudi Arabia is
one of the biggest allies of the United States in the region, and they cannot continue to deter
regional actors absent the weapons that we provide. To prevent this destabilization of the
middle east, we must keep supplying Saudi Arabia with small arms.
Champion Briefs 159

A/2: Saudi Arabia checks Iranian Aggression
Response: Iran isn’t a threat
Stork, Christian. “8 reasons why Iran is NOT a threat.” Business Insider. 9/28/12.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-complete-idiots-guide-to-iran-and-the-
bomb-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-facts-2012-9
The United States military is the largest, most sophisticated machine of force and
violence the world has ever seen. After factoring in foreign military aid and nuclear
weapons maintenance, the U.S. spends over an estimated $1 trillion (that's >$1,000
billion) on defense annually. By contrast, Iran spends somewhere between $10-12
billion on defense annually, after factoring in foreign and domestic paramilitary units
such as the Revolutionary Guards and Basij—Iran's domestic volunteer militia. This is
"less than the United Arab Emirates, and only between 25% to 33% of Saudi defense
spending," notes Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International
Studies. It spends approximately 1/5 of the amount allocated by the six sheikdoms of
the Gulf Cooperation Council—America's staunchest regional allies (save for Israel) and
the guardians of Western access to crude.
Response: Saudi Arabia destabilizes the middle east.
Turak, Natasha. “Blame Saudi Arabia and the US for regional instability, Iran’s foreign
minister says.” CNBC. 12/15/18. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/15/blame-
saudi-arabia-and-the-us-for-regional-instability-irans-foreign-minister-says.html
Iran called out its regional rival Saudi Arabia in response to accusations that Tehran is a
leading state sponsor of terror, accusing Riyadh and the United States of fomenting
'dangerous escalations' in the Middle East.
Champion Briefs 160

Speaking to CNBC's Hadley Gamble at the Doha Forum in Qatar, Iranian foreign Minister
Javad Zarif rejected the label of the world's top sponsor of terrorism ascribed to it by
Saudi Arabia and the U.S.
"I think actions speak much louder than words; what is happening in our region, now
people are witnessing the source of instability in region, be it in Yemen, be it
elsewhere," the minister said.
"It's the wrong policies that are being followed, not only by Saudi Arabia but by its
allies in the West who have given it a blank check to continue to make these very
dangerous escalations in the region," Zarif added.
Zarif's hit at Saudi Arabia was unsurprising, given the recent years of escalation
between the Shia and Sunni powerhouses grappling for greater influence in the
Middle East.
His comments referred to the four-year long civil war in Yemen, where a Saudi-led
bombing campaign has contributed to thousands of deaths, economic collapse and
what the U.N. has called the world's worst humanitarian crisis. For their part, the
Saudis have blamed Yemen's Houthi rebels, who receive support from Tehran.
Blame game over Yemen
Regional analysts say that Iran's support for the Houthis was negligible when they first
overtook the capital Sanaa in 2014. Yet the bombing campaign and the war's
subsequent worsening greatly increased the scope for Iranian involvement, which
includes provision of ballistic missiles — dozens of which have been fired at Saudi
Arabia.
But with thousands of Yemenis killed and more than 12 million facing starvation,
international aid organizations and governments have been urging Saudi Arabia and its
allies to halt its airstrikes, which the U.N. blames for the majority of the war's civilian
deaths. The offensive is backed by the U.S., which supplies intelligence, logistics
support, training and mid-air refueling to Saudi and UAE forces.
Champion Briefs 161

Five international aid groups penned a statement earlier this month warning that if
Washington did not end its support for the Saudi-coalition, it too "will bear
responsibility for what will be the largest famine in decades."
Response: They’ll get the weapons regardless.
Carroll, Oliver. “Russia and Saudi Arabia ‘sign $3bn arms deal’ as King Salman visit shows
how much relations have changed.” The Independent. 10/5/17.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-king-salman-visit-
saudi-arabia-moscow-vladimir-putin-a7985161.html
Russia first announced that it had brokered a $20m (£15m) deal back in 2012. But that
deal had several strings attached, namely a demand that the Kremlin could not sell the
C-300 missile system to Iran, the Saudis’ major regional rivals. Then, President Putin
looked the other way, signing off on a new arms contract with Tehran worth $1bn
(£762m).That move underlined the historical distrust between the two countries. The
Saudis have been accused for supporting anti-Russian insurgency – whether in
mujahedeens against Soviet troops in Afghanistan, or Wahhabist Islamic groups in
Chechnya and Dagestan. The presence of Ramzan Kadyrov, Chechnya’s rascal president
and keen promoter of rival Sufism ideology, at talks in the Kremlin served as a reminder
of those differences.
Analysis: Iran is likely not a threat to the U.S. at this time, and is unlikely to lash out at its
regional allies. Even if Iran were a threat, Saudi Arabia would still be able to deter them because
they’re still a strong nation with the ability to acquire weapons from any other country around
the globe.
Champion Briefs 162

CON: Saudi Arabia invests in American infrastructure
Argument: In exchange for weapons, Saudi Arabia agreed to invest billions in US infrastructure.
Warrant: U.S infrastructure is failing.
Thomas, Lauren. “Engineers give America’s infrastructure a near failing grade.” CNBC.
3/9/17. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/engineers-give-americas-
infrastructure-a-near-failing-grade.html
America's infrastructure is close to failing. That's the assessment of the American

Society of Civil Engineers, which released its 2017 "infrastructure report card"
Thursday, giving the nation's overall infrastructure a grade of D+. The report came a
day after President Donald Trump held a high-profile meeting with a group of executives
to discuss his campaign pledge to invest a trillion dollars to upgrade the nation's critical
infrastructure, such as highways, bridges, airports and dams. Details of any spending
plan have yet to be released, and it remains to be seen how the Trump administration
will pay for the proposed spending.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has promised 40 billion in infrastructure investment.
Dayen, David. “Trump’s ‘America First’ Infrastructure Plan: Let Saudi Arabia and
Blackstone take care of it.” The Intercept. 5/27/17.
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27/trumps-america-first-infrastructure-plan-
let-saudi-arabia-and-blackstone-take-care-of-it/
T H R O UG H O UT T H E PR E S ID E NT I AL campaign, Donald Trump blasted his rival for

taking money from Saudi Arabia, which, he regularly charged, has a horrific human
rights record and was behind the attack on September 11.
Champion Briefs 163

“You talk about women and women’s rights? So these are people that push gays off
buildings. These are people that kill women and treat women horribly. And yet you
take their money,” he complained.
Trump, of course, has never been married to anything he has said in the past. But
even by Trumpian standards, a recent series of deals he struck with Saudi Arabia
stand out.
The two that made the news — a $110 billion arms deal and a $100 million gift to an
Ivanka Trump-inspired endowment — are remarkable in their own right.
But the third, which was rolled out much more quietly, is no less stunning: The Saudi
kingdom joined forces with a top outside adviser to Trump to build a $40 billion war
chest to privatize U.S. infrastructure.
Impact: Improving American infrastructure would be huge for the economy.
Puentes, Robert. “Why Infrastructure Matters: Rotten Roads, Bum Economy.” Brookings
Institute. 1/20/15. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-infrastructure-
matters-rotten-roads-bum-economy/
Cities, states and metropolitan areas throughout America face an unprecedented

economic, demographic, fiscal and environmental challenges that make it imperative for
the public and private sectors to rethink the way they do business. These new forces are
incredibly diverse, but they share an underlying need for modern, efficient and reliable
infrastructure.
Concrete, steel and fiber-optic cable are the essential building blocks of the economy.
Infrastructure enables trade, powers businesses, connects workers to their jobs,
creates opportunities for struggling communities and protects the nation from an
increasingly unpredictable natural environment. From private investment in
telecommunication systems, broadband networks, freight railroads, energy projects
and pipelines, to publicly spending on transportation, water, buildings and parks,
infrastructure is the backbone of a healthy economy.
Champion Briefs 164

A/2: Saudi Arabia invests in American infrastructure
Response: Infrastructure investment fails.
Smith, Carin. “Corruption can add 40% to infrastructure costs – expert.” Fin24. 11/2/17.
https://www.fin24.com/Economy/corruption-can-add-40-to-infrastructure-
costs-expert-20171102-2
Rooting out corruption was linked to better infrastructure, he said. “This is the only way
African governments will get the private sector to come in and invest [in] infrastructure,
because these projects are often just too huge to fund just from raising taxes,” he told
Fin24.“It is estimated that corruption can add up to 30% or 40% to initial project
estimates. If a country has all this waste due to corruption it might end up never having
the economic growth an infrastructure project can bring and instead just battle to get
out of its debt," he said. "Then infrastructure is not a solution but part of the problem.”
Heathcote emphasised that infrastructure is vital to citizens of a country being able to
enjoy their basic human rights like access to transport and electricity.
Response: Blackstone is having to offer discounts to incentivize companies to take the Saudi
infrastructure money.
Vandevelde, Mark. “Blackstone offers discounts on Saudi-backed infrastructure fund.”

Financial Times. 6/10/18. https://www.ft.com/content/49aa1610-6992-11e8-
8cf3-0c230fa67aec
Blackstone is using discounts to coax investors into its Saudi-backed infrastructure

fund, as the investment group toils to kick-start a $40bn initiative hailed as an early
Champion Briefs 165

success for President Donald Trump’s mercantilist foreign policy. Saudi Arabia’s pledge
to match up to $20bn in contributions from other investors in power plants, toll roads
and similar assets, mostly in the US, was a signature announcement of Mr Trump’s
inaugural foreign trip to Riyadh in May 2017. Blackstone hopes to finalise the first
investments from other sources this month. The concessions offered by Blackstone —
which include introductory discounts, permanent fee breaks and the ability to make
some investments without paying Blackstone anything for six years — have come to
light as public pension funds in the US states of Pennsylvania and New Mexico reported
on their commitments.
Analysis: Infrastructure is certainly important, and funding for it has been lower than is desired
in the U.S, but throwing money at the problem doesn’t guarantee an immediate solution. If
anything, this money could end up at the hands of corrupt businessmen or wasted altogether.
Champion Briefs 166

CON: Saudi Arabia will look to other trading partners
Argument: If the United States ends its arms deal with Saudi Arabia, they will look eastward for
new allies who will sell to them.
Warrant: Weapons are the core of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.
Hennigan, WJ. “What makes the U.S.-Saudi Relationship So Special? Weapons, Oil, and
an army of Lobbyists.” Time. 10/18/18. http://time.com/5428669/saudi-arabia-
military-relationship/
It’s a cold financial calculation: Saudi money for U.S.-made weaponry results in
American jobs.
This is President Donald Trump’s rationale in dismissing calls in Congress to halt
future arms sales to Saudi Arabia following the mysterious disappearance of
Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist and American resident.
“I don’t like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the
United States,” Trump said last week.
“All they’re going to do is say, ‘That’s OK. We don’t have to buy it from Boeing.
We don’t have to buy it from Lockheed. We don’t have to buy it from Raytheon
and all these great companies. We’ll buy it from Russia. We’ll buy it from
China,” he said.
The 75-year alliance between the two nations has been built on a simple
arrangement: American demand for Saudi oil and Saudi demand for American
firepower.
It is a relationship that is not easily unwound as a bipartisan group of U.S.
Senators found out earlier this year when they moved to cut off military
assistance to the Saudis in their war against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The United
Nations has said that more half of the more than 10,000 people who have been
Champion Briefs 167

killed in the three-year old war are civilians, and the lives of millions are
potentially at risk from famine.
Warrant: China wants to improve relations with Saudi Arabia.
Al-Quiasy, Ahmed. “Saudi-Chinese Rapprochement and Its Effect on Saudi-American

Relations.” The Washington Institute. 2/2/18.
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/fikraforum/view/saudi-chinese-
rapprochement-and-its-effect-on-saudi-american-relations
The first meeting between China and Saudi Arabia, which took place in Oman in 1985,
was an initial gesture towards official bilateral relations between the two countries.
Before 1990, there were no diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and China, and
Saudi Arabia refused to recognize China as a government. However, full diplomatic
relations were established after the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince
Bandar bin Sultan, visited Beijing. The two countries exchanged ambassadors, and
organized meetings at the political and economic levels. Recently, Saudi Arabia has
attempted to deepen its ties with China to widen its economic base and acquire
important Chinese political position in regional transformations. This rapprochement
has been made clear of by the recent visit of the Saudi monarch, King Salman bin
Abdulaziz, to China in March 2017, where he signed deals worth $65 billion.
The question poses itself: does Saudi-Chinese closeness indicate the beginning of
problem in Saudi-U.S. relations, or can China fill the vacuum occupied by the United
States? To answer this question, the nature of the Saudi-Chinese relationship should be
examined at both the economic and the security level, and analyzed for its implications
on Saudi-U.S. relations.
Champion Briefs 168

Warrant: A pivot to China is looming.

Relations.” The Washington Institute. 2/2/18.
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/fikraforum/view/saudi-chinese-
rapprochement-and-its-effect-on-saudi-american-relations
Economically, the Chinese Deputy Minister for Commerce confirmed last October that
both Beijing and Riyadh intend to establish an investment fund of $20 billion. Thus,
Saudi Arabia is becoming China’s biggest commercial partner in the Middle East and
Africa. Meanwhile, the Saudi Deputy Minister of Economy and Planning said that
Saudi institutions are ready to fund partially in yuan, and China is ready to provide the
funding. Saudi Arabia started using the yuan instead of U.S. dollar in its oil
transactions with China as part of its pivot to China, and to compensate for the future
fading role of Washington in the Middle East. During a phone call between the
Chinese president and the Saudi King in November 2017, the Chinese President
confirmed to the Saudi king that China’s intention to strengthen its strategic
partnership with Riyadh. China wants to keep up with the changes occurring in the
region, especially the drop in Saudi crude exports to the U.S. to their lowest level in
thirty years. China will allow Saudi Arabia to increase its sales in the second-largest oil
market in the world, whereas the U.S. has become energy independent. Security-wise,
some analysts see Saudi Arabia as trying to create a strategic competition among the
great powers to gain weapons and security support, especially after the U.S. appeared
to respond weakly to Saudi security and military needs amidst security challenges. This
might open the door to China and Russia to exert influence in the region, and coordinate
their positions against Washington; thereby making the U.S. either an ineffective player
or out of the game in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia is aware that it is
impossible in the short term to relinquish the U.S. role in national security to China,
which compared to the United States and even Russia, remains less committed
Champion Briefs 169

politically and militarily to its friends among the countries of the region. Washington can
bear the burden of military deployment, military progress, and coalition building, while
China has no such capacity nor the desire to clash with the United States in the Middle
East. Rather, China wishes to benefit from American dominance there, which secures
shipping routes for export oil to China without China having to make any major
investments to protect the region. Amid the current Saudi-Iranian conflict, China is
aware that there is no current alternative to American military presence in the Gulf to
limit Iranian influence, particularly since relations between Saudi Arabia and the United
States have progressed following the election of Donald Trump. Trump is partnering
with Saudi Arabia to limit Iranian influence and supports Saudi reforms, whereby Saudi
Arabia has begun to expand the number of American banks and other economic ties in
the Kingdom. The goal of China’s foreign policy approach is to keep on friendly terms
with all the major players and to avoid continual hostility from several risks, including
increasing Chinese involvement in the region’s security that would affect American and
Russian interests. Accordingly, the Chinese continue to work within their narrow
economic self-interest, and they are likely to continue this strategy so long as regional
conflicts do not pose a basic risk to Beijing’s plans. In addition, the “Silk Road” initiative
is considered a way for China to influence global transformations, and establish
economic and cultural partnerships between Beijing and other countries; thereby,
strengthening China’s role as a main player in world affairs.
Analysis: China has been attempting to curry favors with international leaders as part of their
one belt one road policy. Additionally, the relationships between Beijing and Saudi Arabia have
been easing after years of silence. If the United States backs away, China will likely fill the void
and take the United States’ place as Saudi Arabia’s closest international ally.
Champion Briefs 170

A/2: Saudi Arabia will look to other trading partners
Response: The U.S. Saudi relationship is strong, even despite the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
Ward, Alex. “Why the US won’t break up with Saudi Arabia over Jamal Khashoggi’s
murder.” Vox. 11/20/18. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/18/17990546/trump-
jamal-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-history-murder
President Donald Trump will stand by Saudi Arabia despite mounting evidence that its
leadership was behind dissident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder last month.
In a statement on Tuesday, the president said that “the United States intends to
remain a steadfast partner of Saudi Arabia to ensure the interests of our country,
Israel and all other partners in the region.”
Last week, the CIA reportedly concluded Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
ordered the killing of the journalist, who was a US resident, inside the Saudi consulate in
Istanbul.
Response: The relationship is symbiotic
Ward, Alex. “Why the US won’t break up with Saudi Arabia over Jamal Khashoggi’s
murder.” Vox. 11/20/18. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/18/17990546/trump-
jamal-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-history-murder
But Trump and members of his administration continue to back Riyadh because they
don’t want to jeopardize billions of Saudi dollars flowing into the US economy through
weapons purchases and investments.
This isn’t that surprising — for decades, the US has quietly looked away from Saudi
Arabia’s human rights abuses for material gain. Trump, however, is making this subtext
explicit in a way that no administration has before.
Champion Briefs 171

Analysis: The relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia goes back decades and will not be
shattered by the failure of a single arms deal. If the relationship can survive the murder of
American journalists, it can survive the failure of the arms deal.
Champion Briefs 172

CON: Saudi Arabia will cease reforms.
Argument: Saudi Arabia is making social reforms, but they will stop if the U.S. loses its leverage
over their leaders.
Abdel Ghafar, Adel. “A New Kingdom of Saud?” Brookings Institute. 2/14/18.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/a-new-kingdom-of-saud/
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is undergoing a process of change in its social, economic,
and political structures unseen since its founding in 1932. Crown Prince Mohammed Bin
Salman and a group of close advisors, aided by an army of multinational consultants and
investment bankers, have been driving this transformation. Prince Mohammed and his
team are seeking to restructure the Saudi economy, lessening its dependence on oil and
creating more socioeconomic opportunities for the Saudi people. In 2016, “Saudi Vision
2030” was launched, providing an ambitious blueprint to achieve these goals and more.
What are the various dimensions of these ongoing reforms and what are their prospects
and challenges? What impact will they have on state-society relations in Saudi Arabia?
More importantly, are these reforms part of a genuine nation-building program, or are
they a vehicle for Prince Mohammed to solidify his hold on power for decades to come?
Warrant: The arms deal gives us leverage to influence policy.
French, David. “Arms Deals Give Leverage to America, Not the Saudis.” National Review.
10/18/18. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/arms-deals-give-america-
leverage-not-the-saudis/
Of all the talking points justifying American inaction in response to the indescribably
brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, perhaps the worst is the idea that the Saudis
somehow have leverage over America because of their large-scale arms deals.
Champion Briefs 173

The truth is exactly the reverse.

The Saudi military is highly dependent on advanced American weaponry. American F-
15s comprise close to half the Saudi fighter force, and the Saudi variant of the F-15E
Strike Eagle represents a substantial portion of the air force’s striking power. On land,
the Saudi army is dependent almost exclusively on American M1 Abrams tanks and
Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. They can’t just waltz over to a different country and
transform their armed forces — not without suffering enormous setbacks in readiness
and effectiveness during a years-long transition. A fundamental reality of arms deals is
that a major arms purchase essentially locks the purchasing nation in a dependent
posture for training, spare parts, and technical upgrades.
Impact: The arms deal can serve as leverage to end rights abuses.
Sedaca, Nicole Bibbins. “The United States Should Use Its Leverage Over Saudi Arabia.”
Foreign Policy. 11/5/18. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/05/the-united-
states-should-use-its-leverage-over-saudi-arabia/
The global response to the journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s killing, which has Riyadh on the
defensive in the face of international outcry, has opened a window of opportunity to
exert leverage over Saudi policy. Last week, the United States began pressuring the
kingdom over its role in the war in Yemen.
Washington should use this moment to exert pressure on Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman to extend his economic reform agenda to the Saudi domestic political and civil
rights sphere as well.
Khashoggi’s slaying inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last month has garnered two
types of responses from U.S. officials and much of the media: up-to-the-minute
comments on the investigation and the Saudi response or the contextualization (read:
minimization) of his killing within the importance of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. The
Champion Briefs 174

former approach falls short of addressing the kingdom’s broader crackdown on

journalists and activists, which Khashoggi wrote about and for which he wound up giving
his life. The latter fails to recognize that the silencing of dissent undermines Saudi
Arabia’s economy, stability, reputational goals, and the human rights of its citizens. U.S.
President Donald Trump’s comments after Khashoggi’s death about the importance of
the U.S.-Saudi economic and security partnership reflect his disregard or ignorance of
the linkage between the political climate and Mohammed bin Salman’s economic goals.
Champion Briefs 175

A/2: Saudi Arabia will cease reforms.
Response: Reforms are not working
Dixon, Rodney. “The world can no longer ignore Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses.”
The Guardian. 10/15/18.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/15/saudi-arabia-
human-rights-jamal-khashoggi-disappearance
For the dozens of women and other activists arrested in Saudi Arabia this past year
alone, Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance last week at the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul will
not have come as a surprise. For those who have been able to leave the kingdom after
speaking out, meanwhile, it has now become overwhelmingly clear that even on the
outside they need to be extremely careful. The regime has a knack for using threats
against family members as leverage in return for silence; these threats have taken on a
new, alarming meaning. The thoroughness of the Saudi regime in silencing opponents
has significantly increased since Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman came to power in
2017. I investigated this increase in detentions in a report I co-authored in January this
year. We were requested by the families of some of those detained to release our
findings in an attempt to get governments and the United Nations to act to have them
released. The report found that more than 60 perceived opponents of the Saudi
government had been arrested – including prominent human rights defenders – in a
major crackdown by the Saudi authorities. To date, no concrete steps have been taken
to free them. They remain detained, with the exact whereabouts of many still unknown.
Response: The U.S. enables Saudi rights abuses.
Champion Briefs 176

Yamani, Mai. “Reform in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Brookings Institute. 3/13/08.
https://www.brookings.edu/events/reform-in-the-kingdom-of-saudi-
arabia/#cancel
Yamani explained how the U.S.-Saudi Arabian relationship has helped to ensure the
Kingdom’s survival in the face of external threats to al-Saud rule. The intimacy of the
U.S.-Saudi Arabian relationship, she argued, provides cover for the ruling family’s
repressive domestic policies. U.S. support, Yamani held, provides its own form of
legitimacy: international standing and stature. Thus, she asserted, the survival of the
Saudi regime is not dependent on domestic legitimacy, and the regime is able to shrug
off both domestic and international criticism of its deviations from international human
norms. However, Yamani noted that, though the United States has a degree of influence
over the kingdom’s domestic policies, it is in no manner the country’s “puppeteer.”
Yamani noted that the U.S.-Saudi Arabian relationship is likely to remain close as long as
the United States believes that its national interests are better met by the familiar Saudi
ruling family and the domestic security they guarantee than a more democratic polity.
Champion Briefs 177

CON: Arms deals allow for U.S. dominance in weapons trade
Argument: Profits from the Saudi arms deal will allow for innovation in small arms and other
exported weapons.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia purchases more weapons from the U.S. than any other nation.
Ivanova, Irina. “Saudi Arabia is America’s No.1 Weapons customer.” CBSNews.

10/13/18. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-buyer-of-u-
s-weapons/
The U.S. remains the world's largest weapons exporter, a position it has held since the
late 1990s. Our biggest customer? Saudi Arabia. That business reality came to the
forefront this week in President Donald Trump's refusal to crack down on the kingdom
whose royal rulers have been accused of murdering a Saudi-born, U.S.-based dissident
journalist who disappeared after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The U.S. sold
a total of $55.6 billion of weapons worldwide in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 — up
33 percent from the previous fiscal year, and a near record. In 2017, the U.S. cleared
some $18 billion in new Saudi arms deals. Mr. Trump has dismissed the idea of
suspending weapons sales to Saudi Arabia to punish its crown prince, Mohammad bin
Salman, for any involvement in the alleged murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. "I
don't like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States,"
Mr. Trump said this week.
Warrant: The weapons industry relies on the money from the arms deal.
Spetalnick, Matt. “U.S. weapons makers rattled over Saudi Arabia deals.” Reuters.
10/12/18. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-politics-dissident-arms/u-s-
weapons-makers-rattled-over-saudi-arabia-deals-idUSKCN1MM1VF
Champion Briefs 178

Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) and Raytheon Co (RTN.N) have been the most active U.S.
defense companies with potential sales to Saudi Arabia since Trump announced the
package as part of his “Buy American” agenda to create jobs at home.
In Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike are alarmed by the disappearance of
Khashoggi, a U.S. resident who wrote columns for the Washington Post. He entered the
consulate on Oct. 2 to collect documents for his planned marriage. Saudi officials say
Khashoggi left the building shortly afterwards, but his fiancee, Hatice Cengiz, said he
never re-appeared.
Even before Khashoggi’s unexplained disappearance, Democratic lawmakers had
“holds” for months on at least four military equipment deals, largely because of Saudi
attacks that killed Yemeni civilians.
“This makes it more likely they’ll expand holds to include systems that aren’t necessarily
controversial by themselves. It’s a major concern,” the senior administration official
said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Impact: U.S global arms dominance is at risk.
Bowler, Tim. “Which country dominates the global arms trade?” BBC. 5/10/18.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43873518
Brutal civil wars in Syria and Yemen, coupled with the return of great power rivalries
between the US, Russia and China, have brought the world's arms trade into sharp
focus.
And unsurprisingly it is a thriving global industry, with the total international trade in
arms now worth about $100bn (£74bn) per year, Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher at
the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri), tells the BBC. In its latest
figures, the defence industry think tank says that major weapons sales in the five years
to 2017 were 10% higher than in 2008-12.
Champion Briefs 179

And it is the United States that is extending its lead as the globe's number one arms
exporter, adds Sipri. It estimates that the US now accounts for 34% of all global arms
sales, up from 30% five years ago, and are now at their highest level since the late
1990s. "The US has been open to supplying arms to a large variety of recipients, and
there are a large number of countries ready to acquire weapons from the US," says Mr
Wezeman. The US's arms exports are 58% higher than those of Russia, the world's
second-largest exporter. And while US arms exports grew by 25% in 2013-17 compared
with 2008-12, Russia's exports fell by 7.1% over the same period. It is Middle East states
that have been among the US's biggest customers - Saudi Arabia tops the list - with the
region as a whole accounting for almost half of US arms exports during 2013-17.
Analysis: The U.S. is able to dominate the global arms market partly because Saudi Arabia
purchases so many weapons from the U.S. American weapon manufacturers depend on these
sales in order to maintain their current strength.
Champion Briefs 180

A/2: Arms deals allow for U.S. dominance in weapons trade
Response: Saudi Arabia doesn’t buy as many weapons as suspected.
Macias, Amanda. “Saudi Arabia is the top US weapons buyer – but it doesn’t spend as
much as Trump boasts.” CNBC. 10/15/18.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/15/saudi-arabia-top-us-weapons-buyer-but-
doesnt-spend-as-much-as-trump-boasts.html
President Donald Trump has been hesitant to jeopardize U.S. arms deals with Saudi
Arabia even as outrage grows over the disappearance of journalist and Saudi royal
family critic Jamal Khashoggi. Saudi Arabia is America's No. 1 weapons buyer. Between
2013 and 2017, Riyadh accounted for 18 percent of total U.S. arms sales or about $9
billion, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
But a closer look reveals that the sales aren't quite as big as Trump has boasted. The
president recently praised Riyadh's ambitions to buy $110 billion worth of U.S.-made
arms. But that money hasn't come through yet, according to State Department or
Defense Security Cooperation Agency announcements. The president has cited the
importance of the nations' relationship, pushing back on potentially slapping retaliatory
sanctions on Saudi Arabia over Khashoggi's fate. Saudi Arabia's oil-rich monarchy is one
of America's most crucial strategic partners in the Middle East and a significant patron
of U.S. defense companies.
Response: Selling to Saudi Arabia angers others who bolster dominance in weapons trade like
Israel.
“Israeli minister expresses concern over U.S.-Saudi arms deal.” Reuters. 5/21/17.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-israel/israeli-minister-expresses-
concern-over-u-s-saudi-arms-deal-idUSKBN18H0JW
Champion Briefs 181

Although Israel also sees Iran as a threat to its security, it has a military advantage over
the Arab states and has always been concerned about arms sales to them that could
possibly narrow the margin separating them.
“This is a matter that really should trouble us,” said Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz
prior to the weekly cabinet meeting, although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
made no mention of the deal in his customary public remarks.
A senior U.S. official traveling with Trump said Washington understands what he
described as Israel’s “completely legitimate” concerns and pledged to help the Jewish
state maintain its military advantage. “We’re taking a whole bunch of measures, some
apparent some not so apparent, to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge. That will in
no way be compromised,” the official told Reuters. “You’ll hear a really strong
statement from the president on his commitment to Israel and to Israel’s defense,” the
official added.
Analysis: The weapons purchased by Saudi Arabia are not very substantial, and other allies who
purchase weapons and defense systems from the U.S. may be angered by Americans
supporting an abusive regime.
Champion Briefs 182

CON: Cutting arms would lead to Saudi oil retaliation

Argument: Ending arms sales would make Saudi Arabia retaliate by cutting off their oil supply
to the United States and the rest of the world.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia oil supply defies expectations.
Kemp, John. “Saudi Arabia's Oil Reserves: How Big Are They Really? Kemp.” Reuters,
Thomson Reuters, 11 July 2016, www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-oil-
kemp/saudi-arabias-oil-reserves-how-big-are-they-really-kemp-idUSKCN0ZL1X6.
If the government data is accurate, the kingdom has managed the remarkable feat of
exactly replacing each produced barrel with new discoveries or increased estimates of
the amount recoverable from existing fields. But most of the country’s giant and super-
giant oil fields were discovered between 1936 and 1970 and no comparable discoveries
have been made since then. The implied increase in reserves must therefore come from
enhanced estimates of the amount of oil recoverable from existing reservoirs. The
problem is that field-by-field production profiles and reserve estimates are state secrets
known by only a small group of insiders, making it impossible to test or verify them.
Analyzing Saudi reserves and trying to predict when the kingdom’s production will begin
to decline has been a graveyard for the reputation of professional oil analysts. The
kingdom is currently producing more oil than ever before, defying predictions that its
output would peak and then fall (“Twilight in the desert”, Simmons, 2005).
Warrant: Saudi Arabia controls a lot of the global oil supply.
Timsit, Annabelle. “Despite the Murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Most Countries Continue to
Sell Arms to Saudi Arabia.” Quartz, Quartz, 27 Oct. 2018,
Champion Briefs 183

qz.com/1440586/countries-keep-selling-arms-to-the-saudis-despite-khashoggis-
murder/.
According to the 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, in 2017 Saudi Arabia
produced 12 million barrels of oil per day. That accounted for 12.9% of the world's oil
production, which is in the range of the world's two other major oil production
superpowers -- Russia and the U.S. However, there is an important distinction when it
comes to Saudi Arabia. In Russia, oil production is concentrated among a dozen or so
companies. In the U.S., thousands of companies acting in their own self-interest produce
oil. But in Saudi Arabia, all of the oil production is controlled by Saudi Aramco, the state-
owned oil company and reportedly the most profitable company in the world.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is threatening the United States if it seeks to punish it.
Torchia, Andrew. “Saudi Arabia Says Will Retaliate against Any Sanctions over...”
Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 15 Oct. 2018, www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-
politics-dissident-sanctions/saudi-arabia-says-will-retaliate-against-any-
sanctions-over-khashoggi-case-idUSKCN1MO0F1.
“Saudi Arabia on Sunday warned against threats to punish it over last week’s
disappearance of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, as European leaders piled on pressure
and two more U.S. executives scrapped plans to attend a Saudi investor conference.
Khashoggi, a U.S. resident and Washington Post columnist critical of Riyadh’s policies,
disappeared on Oct. 2 after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Turkey believes he
was murdered and his body removed. Saudi Arabia has denied that. U.S. President
Donald Trump has threatened “severe punishment” if it turns out Khashoggi was killed
in the consulate, though he said Washington would be “punishing” itself if it halted
military sales to Riyadh. “The Kingdom affirms its total rejection of any threats and
attempts to undermine it, whether by threatening to impose economic sanctions, using
Champion Briefs 184

political pressures, or repeating false accusations,” the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA)
quoted an unnamed official as saying.”
Impact: Saudi Arabia cutting off oil supply in a similar fashion as to what they have done in the
past would quadruple oil prices.
Alkhalisi, Zahraa. “Saudi Arabia's Oil Is a Powerful Weapon. But Using It Has Big Risks.”
CNN, Cable News Network, 15 Oct. 2018,
www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/economy/saudi-arabia-oil-prices/index.html.
Forty-five years ago, Saudi Arabia and its allies cut off oil supplies to the United States
over its support for Israel. Oil prices quadrupled, delivering a huge shock to the global
economy. Now the kingdom is facing threats of punishment over the unexplained
disappearance of a Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and is talking of
retaliation if America imposes sanctions. A leading Saudi commentator has even hinted
that oil could once again be used as a weapon. Writing in a personal capacity, Turki
Aldakhil, general manager of the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news channel, warned on
Sunday that the United States would "stab its own economy to death" and oil prices
would soar to $200 a barrel if Washington imposes sanctions on Riyadh.
Analysis: By stopping Arms sales to Saudi arabia, it is believable similarly as they have done in
the past that they will retaliate against the United States by restricting their massive amounts of
oil. This is devastating considering this resource lacks any competition and therefore scarcity will
cause the price to skyrocket.
Champion Briefs 185

A/2: Cutting arms would lead to Saudi oil retaliation

Answer: Saudi Arabia is transitioning away from oil.
Warrant: Saudi government is investing heavily into green energy research.
Saadi, Dania. “Saudi Leads Renewable Energy Developments with $7bn in New
Tenders.” The National, The National, 23 June 2018,
www.thenational.ae/business/energy/saudi-leads-renewable-energy-
developments-with-7bn-in-new-tenders-1.743124.
“Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter, is expected to lead renewable energy
developments this year with up to $7 billion worth of new tenders, according to an
official from the International Renewable Energy Agency. “Saudi Arabia has huge
potential because it has a big market and has very ambitious renewable energy targets,”
said Rabia Ferroukhi, head of policy unit at the Abu Dhabi-based agency “The regulatory
environment is well established now to conduct auctions and attract investors.” Saudi
Arabia is expected to tender over 4 Gigawatts of renewable projects this year, which
could be worth anywhere between $5bn to $7bn, she added. Saudi Arabia, which largely
burns oil to generate power, has set ambitious targets to add 9.5GW of renewables by
2023, as it looks to sell more of its crude to export markets. The Saudi energy ministry’s
renewables office is expected to tender 3.25GW of solar and 800 Megawatts of wind
capacity this year alone.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is domestically transitioning to solar farms instead of relying on traditional
oil energy to power homes.
Champion Briefs 186

The country’s government plans to invest up to $7 billion in seven new solar plants and
a wind farm by the end of the year, with a goal to get 10 percent of its power from
renewables by 2023, The New York Times reported. This week, the government made
a deal with ACWA Power, a Saudi energy company, to build a $300 million solar farm
in Sakaka, in northern Saudi Arabia, that will power 40,000 homes. The project
received bids as low as 2 to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour — lower than the cost of
electricity generated from fossil fuels, according to Turki al-Shehri, head of the
kingdom’s renewable energy program.
Analysis: Saudi Arabia is likely transitioning away from the production of oil as they invest more
money into green energy research and implement green energy technology to power their
country. This is significant as it means their share in the oil market is likely dwindling.
Answer: United States has plenty of oil to supply the world.
Warrant: US controls more oil than anyone else on the planet.
Cunningham, Nick. “The US Has the Largest Oil Reserves in the World.” Business Insider,
Business Insider, 6 July 2016, www.businessinsider.com/us-has-the-worlds-
largest-oil-reserves-2016-7.
“The U.S. holds more oil reserves than anyone else in the world, including Saudi Arabia,
Russia, and Venezuela. That conclusion comes from a new independent estimate from
Rystad Energy, a Norwegian consultancy. Rystad estimates that the U.S. holds 264
Champion Briefs 187

billion barrels of oil, more than half of which is located in shale. That total exceeds the
256 billion barrels found in Russia, and the 212 billion barrels located in Saudi Arabia.”
Warrant: United States is accessing previously inaccessible oil reserves with its advanced
technology.
“Utah holds the largest reserves of oil sands in the United States, but up until now, no
company had the technology to exploit these vast resources. Despite the potential,
“only a few companies are pursuing the price-sensitive and water-intensive
development of the state's oil shale and oil sand resources,” the EIA said in a 2017
report on the state, essentially writing off the region as a meaningful opportunity. But
that could change in the very near future. Petroteq Energy hopes to bring the first
commercially profitable oil sands production online in the United States in the next few
weeks. “
Analysis: The United States would likely be able to face retaliation by Saudi Arabian government
if they were to restrict oil trades to the United States or rest of the international community.
Champion Briefs 188

CON: Ending Saudi Sales risks crippling US-Saudi Alliance
Argument: Arms sales allow for the United States and Saudi alliance to remain strong.
Warrant: Weapon sales is a huge part of U.S. Saudi relations
Hennigan, W.J. “U.S.-Saudi Relationship Built on Oil, Weapons, Lobbying.” Time, Time,
18 Oct. 2018, time.com/5428669/saudi-arabia-military-relationship/.
The Saudi-U.S. relationship is peerless when it comes to arms sales. The kingdom buys
more American weapons than any other nation. Saudi Arabia accounted for nearly
one-fifth of American of all weapons exports over the past five years, according to a
recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The Pentagon
has a team of U.S. service members based out of the capital Riyadh wholly dedicated
the “management and administration of Saudi Arabian Foreign Military Sales.” It serves
as a direct pipeline to move weapons from U.S. arms manufacturers into the arms of the
Saudi military. The U.S. military’s Joint Advisory Division works alongside commanders in
each branch of the Saudi military to help fill their weapons needs. Once the Saudis
commit to what they want — tanks, attack helicopters, missiles, ships, laser-guided
bombs — the arms packages must be OK’d by the U.S. Defense and State Departments,
and approved by Congress. The arrangement falls under the U.S. Military Training
Mission to Saudi Arabia, which is led by a two-star American general. The mission is
primarily designed to bolster Saudi Arabia against arch-rival Iran in order to assert
power and influence in the Middle East.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is crucial ally in the Middle East.
Gould, Joe. “Mattis, Pompeo Back Saudi Arabia Ahead of Vote to End Military Support in
Yemen War.” Defense News, Defense News, 29 Nov. 2018,
Champion Briefs 189

www.defensenews.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/11/28/mattis-pompeo-
back-riyadh-ahead-of-vote-to-cut-off-military-support-in-yemen-war/.
Mattis, in prepared remarks released by the Pentagon, said told senators that morning
that cutting off U.S. military support would undercut diplomatic efforts to end Yemen’s
civil war. It’s necessary to demand accountability for Khashoggi’s murder “while
recognizing the reality of Saudi Arabia as a necessary strategic partner,” he said. “I must
note we are seldom free to work with unblemished partners. Long-standing
relationships guide but do not blind us,” Mattis said. “Saudi Arabia, due to geography
and the Iranian threat, is fundamental to maintaining regional and Israeli security, and
to our interest in Mid-East stability." Mattis and Pompeo both said the U.S. is on the
verge of starting peace talks.
Impact: Saudi Arabia alliance provides crucial amount of oil to the United States.
Alkhalisi, Zahraa. “Saudi Arabia's Oil Is a Powerful Weapon. But Using It Has Big Risks.”
CNN, Cable News Network, 15 Oct. 2018,
www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/economy/saudi-arabia-oil-prices/index.html.
Forty-five years ago, Saudi Arabia and its allies cut off oil supplies to the United States
over its support for Israel. Oil prices quadrupled, delivering a huge shock to the global
economy. Now the kingdom is facing threats of punishment over the unexplained
disappearance of a Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and is talking of
retaliation if America imposes sanctions. A leading Saudi commentator has even hinted
that oil could once again be used as a weapon. Writing in a personal capacity, Turki
Aldakhil, general manager of the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news channel, warned on
Sunday that the United States would "stab its own economy to death" and oil prices
would soar to $200 a barrel if Washington imposes sanctions on Riyadh.
Champion Briefs 190

Impact: Americans are safer from terrorism because of U.S. Saudi alliance.
Pregent, Michael. “Saudi Arabia Is a Great American Ally.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy,
20 Apr. 2016, foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/20/saudi-arabia-is-a-great-american-
ally-not-iran/.
U.S. intelligence and security officials have been particularly effusive in describing the
important role Saudi Arabia has played in cutting off the sophisticated global network of
illicit finance used by terrorists. According to the State Department, “Al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula’s lack of success in Saudi Arabia can be attributed to the Saudi
government’s continued domestic and bilateral efforts to … counter terrorism and
violent extremist ideologies.” The truth is plain: Americans are safer today because the
kingdom has foiled numerous al Qaeda terrorist plots targeting the U.S. homeland.
Adam J. Szubin, Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence,
recently praised the kingdom’s aggressive stance against terrorism as reflecting “the
strength of U.S. and Saudi cooperation on countering the financing of terrorism.”
Analysis: It may be true Saudi Arabia is not the best ally, it is still absolutely necessary we
preserve the United Saudi Arabian alliance as it allows for greater security and intelligence in
the United States’ quest to create stability within the Middle East. Ending arms sales would
ultimately cripple this alliance.
Champion Briefs 191

A/2: Ending Saudi Sales risks crippling US-Saudi Alliance
Answer: This alliance is obsolete.
Warrant: We do not need Saudi Arabia for countering Iran
Ward, Alex. “Why the US Won't Break up with Saudi Arabia over Jamal Khashoggi's
Murder.” Vox.com, Vox Media, 20 Nov. 2018,
www.vox.com/2018/10/18/17990546/trump-jamal-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-
history-murder.
One thing you hear is that the Saudis are valuable allies against Iran. But that’s
backward. The Saudi-Iranian rivalry is very intense, and we are valuable to Saudi
Arabia as allies against Iran. The leverage here is entirely in our corner. As the country
that’s located on another continent and that doesn’t admire either country’s political
system, we have the option of moving to a more neutral position between these two
countries unless the Saudis do what we want. Fear that Americans would realize this is
what drove think tanks funded by the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates into such a
frenzy of opposition to President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Resolving the
nuclear issue would have set the stage to make a more neutral US posture at least
theoretically possible, which, in turn, would have given the US a very strong upper
hand vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia. But the Gulf states, working with Israel, got Republicans to
scuttle the deal in a way that has made the world less safe from nuclear proliferation
but serves their narrow regional political agenda.
Warrant: The new leadership in Saudi Arabia is not interested in becoming more democratic.
Henderson, Simon. “Saudi Arabia Hits the Brakes on Reforms.” The Atlantic, Atlantic
Media Company, 22 May 2018,
Champion Briefs 192

www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/saudi-arabia-hits-the-
brakes-on-reforms/560870/.
“MbS, it seems, isn’t really interested in change. Arresting the activists is the way that
Saudi Arabia would and did behave in the past: In 1990, several dozen women were
arrested for driving through Riyadh. But today’s Saudi Arabia is meant to be different,
and MbS is supposed to be a different kind of royal. The world’s hopes are on him to
create a modern Saudi Arabia, able to detach itself from its conservative theocratic
underpinnings. After these latest arrests, his ability to satisfy those hopes is in doubt.”
Analysis: Rather than preserving an alliance that the United States and the global community
gains very little from, the U.S. should seek to pressure Saudi Arabia into reforming its government
and aggressive behavior in the Middle East. Only by cutting arms sales can we use our leverage
to force the country to rethink their geopolitical role in the world
Answer: Saudi Arabia is a bad ally.
Warrant: There is evidence to show Saudi Arabia is partially responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Revesz, Rachael. “Saudi Government 'Funded a Dry Run' of 9/11'.” The Independent,
Independent Digital News and Media, 10 Sept. 2017,
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-saudi-government-
embassy-dry-run-hijacks-lawsuit-cockpit-security-a7938791.ht
“The Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington DC may have funded a “dry run” of the
9/11 attacks, according to evidence submitted to an ongoing lawsuit against the Saudi
government. As reported by the New York Post, the embassy might have used two of its
employees for the so-called dry run before a dozen hijackers flew two planes into the
Twin Towers, killing nearly 3,000 people in 2001. The complaint, filed on behalf of 1,400
Champion Briefs 193

family members of the victims, stated that the Saudi Government paid two nationals,
posing as students in the US, to take a flight from Phoenix to Washington and test out
flight deck security before 9/11.”
Warrant: A lot of U.S. given to Saudi Arabia ends up in the hands of the Islamic State.
Mckernan, Bethan. “Isis Arms Traced Back to America and Saudi Arabia.” The
Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 15 Dec. 2017,
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-us-saudi-arabia-arms-
fighters-jihadis-military-capability-enhanced-weapons-syria-terrorism-
a8112076.html.
An extensive field investigation into the origins of Isis’ weaponry in Syria and Iraq has
found that weapons supplied by the US and Saudi Arabia to the Syrian opposition often
ended up in the jihadis’ hands, enhancing the “quantity and quality” of their
armaments. While most weapons in Isis’ arsenal were captured from the Syrian and
Iraqi armies, Conflict Armament Research (CAR)’s report, published on Thursday,
found that the number of US and Saudi supplied weapons in Isis’ arsenal goes “far
beyond those that would have been available through battle capture alone”. “Iraq and
Syria have seen Isis forces use large numbers of weapons, supplied by states such as
Saudi Arabia and the United States, against the various international anti-Isis
coalitions that the two states support,” researchers found.
Analysis: Saudi Arabia is responsible for funding terrorist organizations that have in the past and
still today preach hatred towards the United States and its allies. Rather than continuing to fund
an enemy, the U.S. should seek to pressure the regime to stop them from taking actions against
American interests.
Champion Briefs 194

CON: Sales help Saudi fight ISIS
Argument: Saudi is currently helping us rebuild the Middle East and destroy the Islamic State,
ending arms sales could hurt our alliance and ability to destroy the terrorist organization.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is effectively using its military to fight ISIS
Kaja, Bill. “Saudi Arabia | Saudi Arabia Joins the Fight Against ISIS and Attacks Rebels in
Yemen.” Saudi Arabia Joins the Fight Against ISIS and Attacks Rebels in Yemen,
Infoplease, 2018, www.infoplease.com/world/countries/saudi-arabia/saudi-
arabia-joins-the-fight-against-isis-and-attacks-rebels-in-yemen.
“In September 2014, Saudi Arabia joined the U.S.-led campaign in Syria against the
radical Islamist group ISIS, which seeks to establish an Islamic state in the Middle East
ruled by strict shariah law. Houthi rebels gained considerable ground in Yemen in 2014
and 2015. In January 2015, they took over the capital, Sana, placed Yemeni president
Abdel Rabbo Mansour Hadi under house arrest. The rebels then moved further south,
engaging in battles with government troops. In an attempt to stop the Houthis from
advancing further, Saudi Arabia led a coalition of Arab states in an offensive on Houthi
targets in Yemen in late March 2015. More than 100 Saudi jets were involved in the
airstrikes. A Saudi-led airstrike hit a camp for displaced civilians on March 30, killing as
many as 40 people. The operation, called Decisive Storm, continued well into April but
failed to stop the Houthis' advance. The fighting claimed hundreds of civilian lives,
displaced as many as 150,000, and destroyed neighborhoods. An embargo of food and
medicine, which the Saudis enforced, created a humanitarian crisis. On April 21, Saudi
Arabia said the campaign, having achieved its goals, was over and the country would
focus on a political solution. However, the main goals of the operation, to return
President Hadi to office and rout the Houthis, were not achieved. Saudi Arabia resumed
airstrikes the next day.”
Champion Briefs 195

Warrant: The relationship the United States has with Saudi Arabia allows it to help contribute
to the fight against ISIS.
Donati, Jessica. “Saudi Arabia to Contribute $100 Million to U.S.-Backed Efforts in Syria.”
The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 17 Aug. 2018,
www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-to-contribute-100-million-to-u-s-backed-
efforts-in-syria-1534469569.
Saudi Arabia has agreed to contribute $100 million in aid to U.S.-backed coalition
efforts in Syria, the State Department said Thursday, following attempts by the Trump
administration to push Arab allies to play a greater role in the war. The sum appeared
to fall short of U.S. requests for Arab money and troops earlier this year, but
represented a step in Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the Syrian conflict that has drawn in
rival powers, including Iran and Russia, and displaced millions of people.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is currently working to stabilize Syria.
Sonne, Paul, and Karen DeYoung. “Trump Wants to Get the U.S. out of Syria's War, so
He Asked the Saudi King for $4 Billion.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 16
Mar. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-wants-to-
get-the-us-out-of-syrias-war-so-he-asked-the-saudi-king-for-
4billion/2018/03/16/756bac90-2870-11e8-bc72-
077aa4dab9ef_story.html?utm_term=.1f440ffee192.
“In a December phone call with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, President Trump had an
idea he thought could hasten a U.S. exit from Syria: Ask the king for $4 billion. By the
end of the call, according to U.S. officials, the president believed he had a deal. The
White House wants money from the kingdom and other nations to help rebuild and
Champion Briefs 196

stabilize the parts of Syria that the U.S. military and its local allies have liberated from
the Islamic State. The postwar goal is to prevent Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and
his Russian and Iranian partners from claiming the areas, or the Islamic State from
regrouping, while U.S. forces finish mopping up the militants. The Saudis, whose crown
prince arrives in Washington on Monday for extensive meetings with the
administration, are part of the anti-Islamic State coalition but have largely withdrawn
from the fight in Syria in recent years. They are questioning the eye-popping sum even
as U.S. officials at one point were drawing up line items totaling $4 billion.”
Impact: ISIS participates in the slave trade.
“ISIS Fast Facts.” CNN, Cable News Network, 20 Dec. 2018,

www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/isis-fast-facts/index.html.
In 2014, ISIS controlled more than 34,000 square miles in Syria and Iraq, from the
Mediterranean coast to south of Baghdad. At the end of 2016, ISIS territory had shrunk
to about 23,320 square miles, according to IHS Jane's. In 2015, ISIS was believed to be
holding 3,500 people as slaves, according to a United Nations report. Most of the
enslaved were women and children from the Yazidi community, but some were from
other ethnic and religious minority communities. ISIS's revenue comes from oil
production and smuggling, taxes, ransoms from kidnappings, selling stolen artifacts,
extortion and controlling crops.
Analysis: The United States and Saudi Arabia have been working together to destroy the Islamic
State by ending arms sales we risk hurting this key alliance that is critical for the future of
Middle East security. The Islamic State trafficks thousands women and children and ensuring
the defeat of the organization ensures their safety.
Champion Briefs 197

A/2: Sales help Saudi fight ISIS
Answer: Saudi Arabia is helping ISIS gain more power
Warrant: Many of the aid we give to Saudi Arabia ends up in the hands of the Islamic State.
Mckernan, Bethan. “Isis Arms Traced Back to America and Saudi Arabia.” The
Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 15 Dec. 2017,
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-us-saudi-arabia-arms-
fighters-jihadis-military-capability-enhanced-weapons-syria-terrorism-
a8112076.html.
An extensive field investigation into the origins of Isis’ weaponry in Syria and Iraq has
found that weapons supplied by the US and Saudi Arabia to the Syrian opposition often
ended up in the jihadis’ hands, enhancing the “quantity and quality” of their
armaments. While most weapons in Isis’ arsenal were captured from the Syrian and
Iraqi armies, Conflict Armament Research (CAR)’s report, published on Thursday,
found that the number of US and Saudi supplied weapons in Isis’ arsenal goes “far
beyond those that would have been available through battle capture alone”. “Iraq and
Syria have seen Isis forces use large numbers of weapons, supplied by states such as
Saudi Arabia and the United States, against the various international anti-Isis
coalitions that the two states support,” researchers found.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has past of stoking anti American fears validating the Islamic State’s
narrative.
Byman, Daniel. “The U.S.-Saudi Arabia Counterterrorism Relationship.” Brookings.edu,

The Brookings Institution, 10 May 2017, www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-u-
s-saudi-arabia-counterterrorism-relationship/.
Champion Briefs 198

Perhaps most important, Saudi Arabia is home to many preachers and religious
organizations that embrace sectarianism and oppose a U.S. role in the Middle East. A
number of prominent Saudi preachers regularly condemn Shi’a Muslims, thus
validating the Islamic State’s sectarian campaign and otherwise increasing its
legitimacy. Some also blame the United States for a host of ills, embracing conspiracy
theories such as the Bush administration being behind the 9/11 attacks. There is
relative progress, however, in that many senior religious leaders do urge Saudis not to
be foreign fighters or otherwise participate in conflicts abroad, arguing instead that local
Muslims or state authorities should be the ones to respond.
Analysis: Rather than helping the United States destroy the Islamic State, the Saudi government
has been helping the organization gain further power in the Middle East. By giving further aid to
the Saudi government we risk empowering ISIS and putting further individuals at risk of violence
in the region.
Answer: ISIS is already weak
Warrant: ISIS has lost a majority of its funds already
The Economist. “The caliphate cracks.” The Economist. March 21, 2015. NP.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21646750-though-islamic-state-still-
spreading-terror-its-weaknesses-are-becoming-apparent
“America and its allies have bombed lucrative oil facilities. Most of the hostages have
been sold or murdered in video-recorded beheadings. Now that IS’s forces are
retreating, the loot of conquest has dried up. Some analysts reckon it may have lost
up to 75% of its revenues. That makes it harder for IS to keep fighting and to provide
services to the roughly 8m people living under its rule.”
Champion Briefs 199

Warrant: Coalition airstrikes on ISIS have been effective.
Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent, CNN, January 22, 2015,

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/politics/us-officials-say-6000-isis-fighters-
killed-in-battles/
The coalition fighting ISIS has killed more than 6,000 fighters, including half of the top
command of the terror group, U.S. diplomatic officials said Thursday. The number of
fighters killed has not been publicly discussed before but was disclosed by the U.S.
ambassador to Iraq Stuart Jones, who told Al Arabiya television earlier in the day that an
estimated 6,000 fighters have been killed. Jones said the military effort was having a
"devastating" impact on ISIS.”
Analysis: ISIS has been effectively weakened in the status quo. This is important as it means it is
no longer crucial for Saudi Arabia to cooperate in the fight against the Islamic State. Rather than
supporting a government that commits human rights violations, we should pressure them to
change their behavior towards their citizens.
Champion Briefs 200

CON: Arms sales help us balance the trade deficit

Argument: Saudi arms sales help us balance our trade deficit which bring along numerous
tangential benefits
Warrant: The US is running a trade surplus with Saudi Arabia
“Saudi Arabia.” Summary of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement | United States
Trade Representative, Office of the US Trade Representative, ustr.gov/countries-
regions/europe-middle-east/middle-east/north-africa/saudi-arabia.
U.S. goods and services trade with Saudi Arabia totaled an estimated $45.6 billion in
2017. Exports were $25.5 billion; imports were $20.1 billion. The U.S. goods and
services trade surplus with Saudi Arabia was $5.4 billion in 2017. Saudi Arabia is
currently our 22nd largest goods trading partner with $35.2 billion in total (two way)
goods trade during 2017. Goods exports totaled $16.3 billion; goods imports totaled
$18.9 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Saudi Arabia was $2.5 billion in 2017.
Trade in services with Saudi Arabia (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $10.4
billion in 2017. Services exports were $9.2 billion; services imports were $1.2 billion.
The U.S. services trade surplus with Saudi Arabia was $8.0 billion in 2017.
Warrant: A trade surplus with Saudi Arabia presents unique strategic implications
Roberts, Ken. “Bragging Rights For Trump: U.S. Has $1 Billion Trade Surplus With Saudi
Arabia, 1st Foreign Stop.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 20 May 2017,
www.forbes.com/sites/kenroberts/2017/05/19/bragging-rights-for-trump-u-s-
has-1-billion-trade-surplus-with-saudi-arabia-1st-foreign-stop/#450af13732df.
Champion Briefs 201

I will get to the strategic implications in a minute but here's what is remarkable about
that trade surplus: Two years before, in 2014, the trade deficit the United States had
with Saudi Arabia was the sixth largest with any country in the world. In size, it trailed
only U.S. deficits with China, Canada, Mexico, Japan and Germany, the nation's five
largest overall trade partners. The U.S. deficit with Saudi Arabia stood at $28.34
billion. Two years later, in 2016, the United States ran a $1.10 billion trade surplus
with Saudi Arabia, according to U.S. Census data analyzed by WorldCity, the company
where I serve as president. I have been looking at trade data for well over a decade. I
don't ever recall seeing such a significant turnaround in such a short period of time. So,
in 2016, the United States was able to add Saudi Arabia to the list of 135 other nations
with which it had a trade surplus. We had deficits with 101. But given its reduced
economic stature with the United States could offer incentive for both sides on the
political side, perhaps providing leverage to President Trump on arms sales or in
dealing with Iran and Syria. Let's see..”
Warrant: A trade deficit carries massive consequences
McBride, James. “The U.S. Trade Deficit: How Much Does It Matter?” Council on Foreign
Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 17 Oct. 2017,
www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-trade-deficit-how-much-does-it-matter.
Peter Navarro, a senior advisor to the president on trade and industry, believes that the
deficit threatens national security in that the United States depends on foreign debt
and foreign investment to finance it. The administration has made lowering the deficit
with Mexico a priority in its current renegotiation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). It has also signaled that it will move aggressively to combat
practices the WTO considers unfair, such as dumping, in which countries subsidize
products, such as steel, and sell them abroad for less than their market value. Some
Champion Briefs 202

economists worry about the consequences of large and persistant imbalances. The
Peterson Institute’s Gagnon warns that the debt necessary to finance the deficit is
heading toward unsustainable levels. Former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke
and Jared Bernstein, an economic advisor to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama,
have argued that the large inflows of foreign capital that accompany trade deficits can
lead to financial bubbles and may have contributed to the U.S. housing crash that
began in 2006. Others note that a growing deficit has been associated with a weak
economy, as in the early 2000s, which they say is evidence of the potential for a large
deficit to drain demand from the domestic economy and slow growth when the
economy is performing under its potential.
Analysis: This argument offers a lot of inroads into a cool economic argument about the trade
deficit. For those who competed on the January topic, prep pertaining to the national debt and
the importance of prioritizing it could come in handy when reading this argument.
Champion Briefs 203

A/2: Arms sales help us balance the trade deficit
Answer: Trade deficits don’t matter in the long run
Warrant: Trade deficits are a normal aspect of trade and nothing to worry about
Zarroli, Jim. “America Has A Large Trade Deficit, But Economists Aren't Too Concerned
About It.” NPR, NPR, 28 Mar. 2018,
www.npr.org/2018/03/28/597688347/america-has-a-large-trade-deficit-but-
economists-arent-too-concerned-about-it.
The United States buys a lot of products from other countries, everything from oil and
chemicals to shoes and automobiles, and when it does, it pays for them in dollars, she
notes. As a result, countries such as China and Japan accumulate vast piles of U.S.
currency. Those countries have to exchange those dollars for something, and for a long
time they've used them to buy U.S. assets, such as stock, real estate and Treasury bills.
Bilateral trade deficits — such as last year's $375 billion U.S. goods gap with China —
are even less important, says Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve governor and a
professor of economics. "They're absolutely normal components of trade. I now have
a very large bilateral trade surplus with my employer, Princeton University, which
gives me a paycheck, and I buy almost nothing from the university," Blinder says. "I
have a bilateral deficit with the grocery store, where I buy lots of food and they buy
nothing from me. That's the way trade goes," he says. Blinder says trade deficits can
become a problem if foreigners suddenly stop wanting to invest in a country. That's
what happened to Greece, he notes.
Warrant: Trade deficits are not an indication of poor economic performance, it’s quite the
opposite
Champion Briefs 204

Murphy, John G. “Trade Deficit Truths.” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 6 Feb. 2018,
www.uschamber.com/series/above-the-fold/trade-deficit-truths.
The trade deficit is a poor measure of whether a particular set of trade policies—or
trade agreements—is delivering benefits to the American people. The vast majority of
economists agree that “foreign import barriers and exports subsidies are not the
reason for the US trade deficit,” as Martin Feldstein, who chaired President Ronald
Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984, recently wrote. In fact, a
trade deficit is often a sign of economic good health, signaling that purchasing power is
strong and consumers are optimistic enough to spend—just as we are seeing today.
Historically, the U.S. trade deficit has expanded when the U.S. economy has grown
faster than those of our major trading partners, as in the expansions of the 1980s and
1990s. By contrast, the U.S. current account has moved in the direction of a surplus in
recessions, as happened in the Great Depression and the 2007-2009 recession. The U.S.
trade deficit reflects broad macroeconomic factors, not foreign trade barriers.
Examining the relationship between trade balances and trade barriers across 125
countries, researchers at the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that
“between 2003 and 2014, those with higher tariffs generally had bigger current account
deficits or smaller surpluses than others…. They couldn’t find any statistically
meaningful link between the two.”
Impact: Too much focus on trade deficits could be detrimental for the US
McBride, James. “The U.S. Trade Deficit: How Much Does It Matter?” Council on Foreign
Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 17 Oct. 2017,
www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-trade-deficit-how-much-does-it-matter.
Champion Briefs 205

Many economists stress that trade boosts the overall economy by lowering prices and
increasing productivity. As the Hoover Institution’s Russ Roberts writes, trade, by
directing resources to where the economy is most competitive, creates new
opportunities and society-wide advances that improve life for everyone in often
unforeseen ways. Rather than protecting struggling industries, he says, policy should
focus on giving people the skills to compete and flourish in an ever-changing world.
Economists also note that traditional ways of measuring economic health, such as gross
domestic product (GDP) and trade statistics, have difficulty accounting for the rapid
growth of the digital economy and the new types of jobs it created. Irwin and others
worry that too much focus on the trade deficit could lead to a revival of protectionism
and a new global trade war that would make everyone worse off, especially in an era
of supply chains that cross many borders. Promises that restrictions on imports from
China or elsewhere will revive manufacturing, they say, ignore that technology plays a
much larger role in deindustrialization than does trade, and that the U.S. economy
began shifting away from manufacturing long before the proliferation of trade
agreements in the 1990s. Instead, the Peterson Institute’s Hufbauer counsels, it is
better to recognize that the trade deficit is neither all good or all bad, but rather
consists of trade-offs: the U.S. economy benefits from foreign goods and investment
even as a high deficit displaces some workers and adds to the national debt.
Analysis: At the end of the day, the United States runs a trade deficit with 101 countries and it
has contributed to no long term consequences. Trade deficits are a normal product of trade and
shouldn’t be something that we base policy decisions on.
Champion Briefs 206

CON: Ending Arms sales incentivizes a Chinese Pivot
Argument: Without US arms, Saudi Arabia would look to other trading partners such as China,
which would carry seismic consequences. .
Warrant: US retaliation over Khashoggi’s death could push the Saudi’s to China
Zheng, Sarah. “Trump Fears China Could Replace US in Arms Sales to Saudi. He
Shouldn't.” South China Morning Post, South China Morning Post, 18 Oct. 2018,
www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2168849/china-may-seek-boost-
ties-saudi-arabia-it-cant-fill-us-arms.
“Saudi Arabia has long sought to diversify away from its reliance on the US and has
increasingly stepped up its engagement with China, its largest trading partner with
US$42.36 billion in bilateral trade in 2017. Last March, the two countries also signed
US$65 billion worth of deals in areas ranging from energy to space technology. The Arab
nation could turn to countries such as China and Russia to help fulfil its military needs
if US sanctions were imposed, a step that would “create an economic disaster that
would rock the entire world”, according to a widely cited opinion piece by the general
manager of the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya news channel. “Part of the reason why [Saudi
Arabia] is diversifying is there’s been so many kinds of structural changes in the
relationship with the US,” Fulton said. “Another important part is just obviously the
commercial relationship and economic relationship between these Gulf states and
China, with these energy exports. We’re seeing a lot more engagement both ways.”
Warrant: A Sino-Saudi alliance could be dangerous
Champion Briefs 207

Ramani, Samuel. “The Risks of the China-Saudi Arabia Partnership.” The Diplomat, The
Diplomat, 17 Feb. 2018, thediplomat.com/2018/02/the-risks-of-the-china-saudi-
arabia-partnership/.
“While U.S. opposition is the largest immediate obstacle to China-Saudi Arabia

economic cooperation, a shift in the economic conditions that have allowed Chinese
investments to grow in Saudi Arabia could also weaken the partnership. In recent
years, Chinese investors have made inroads in Saudi Arabia because of their
willingness to directly cooperate with Saudi government enterprises, and provide
capital to potentially risky economic diversification projects. While these advantages
remain intact, the nature of Saudi Arabia’s privatization strategy and success of Riyadh’s
“Look East” strategy could eventually erode China’s privileged position. Although China
will likely benefit from the upcoming Aramco IPO deal, extensive privatization outside
the energy sector could weaken Beijing’s competitive position relative to the United
States. If Mohammed bin Salman exercises restraint and embraces a cautious
privatization plan, China’s business interests will be given a critical boost. Chinese
technology companies like Alibaba and Tencent are conglomerates that can more
effectively withstand state interference than their American counterparts, and will be
able to leverage this advantage to entrench their dominance over time. To compound
China’s vulnerabilities in a rapid privatization scenario, Saudi policymakers view China
as one of many potential investors in the Asia-Pacific region, and will work to prevent
Beijing from gaining excessively large ownership stakes in infant industries developing
within Saudi Arabia’s non-oil sectors. The Saudi monarchy’s circumspect attitude
toward Chinese investment can be explained by Riyadh’s concerns that China will
attempt to eventually convert its economic influence in Saudi Arabia into political
influence, like it has in countries like Pakistan and the Philippines.”
Warrant: China is paving new roads in their partnership with Saudi Arabia
Champion Briefs 208

Wagner, Daniel, and Giorgio Cafiero. “Is the U.S. Losing Saudi Arabia to China?” The
Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 Jan. 2014,
www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/is-the-us-losing-saudi-
ar_b_4176729.html
On the China question, Saudi Arabia has diversified its trading partners over the past
quarter century - away from the U.S. and toward Asia. In 2009 Saudi exports to China
exceeded those to the U.S. for the first time, and the Kingdom exports in excess of
three times more to five Asian countries (China, Japan, South Korea, India and
Singapore) than to Europe and North America combined. By 2030 Chinese demand for
oil is expected to reach more than 16 million barrels per day, while U.S. demand is
expected to decrease, and U.S. oil imports are expected to dwindle in the age of
fracking. Within the context of Chinese demand, Saudi Aramco’s CEO stated a few years
ago that “the writing is on the wall” and that China is the future growth market for Saudi
petroleum. In doing so, Saudi Arabia is joining the world’s major Muslim powers (Egypt,
Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan and
Turkey) that have also deepened their economic ties with China over the past decade.
China’s military currently lacks the capacity to police the Persian Gulf and safeguard
shipping, and no country other than the U.S. has the capacity to provide a security
umbrella to countries in the region. The Saudis will therefore remain dependent on the
U.S. in that regard, which also suits Beijing’s interest for the time being. China has been
content not to be seen as actively promoting regional stability, but rather to ride the
coat tails of the U.S. militarily. China is also happy to play the spoiler against U.S.-led
efforts to isolate Iran from the international economy, having become Iran’s number
one export partner — which points to an inherent contradiction in the Saudis’ approach
to the Chinese.
Champion Briefs 209

Analysis: I think that this argument is going to be something that teams will hear quite often.
Trump has vocally come out and said that he believes that any decrease in US presence in Saudi
Arabia will incentivize a country like China, which has maintained a healthy relationship with
the Saudi’s, to come in and fill the gap. This argument offers some cool impacts that could have
effects on a much larger geopolitical scale.
Champion Briefs 210

A/2: Ending Arms sales incentivizes a Chinese Pivot
Answer: US is still miles ahead of China in terms of weapons development, China would not be
able to fill the difference
Warrant: China is still well behind the US
Zheng, Sarah. “Trump Fears China Could Replace US in Arms Sales to Saudi. He
Shouldn't.” South China Morning Post, South China Morning Post, 18 Oct. 2018,
www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2168849/china-may-seek-boost-
ties-saudi-arabia-it-cant-fill-us-arms.
In the editorial, Turki Aldakhil said Saudi Arabia – the world’s largest oil exporter – was
considering more than 30 countermeasures to be taken against the US, including trading
oil in yuan instead of the US dollar. But in the military realm, China’s arms exports to
Saudi Arabia lag far behind those of the US and its European allies. Beijing exported
only around US$20 million in arms last year compared to US$3.4 billion from
Washington, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute, a Swedish think tank. “I think China is likely to keep a low profile on this issue
and see how it plays out before directly addressing it,” she said. “While its technology
is developing, China still lags behind the US in the sophistication and capability of its
military equipment. It simply can’t fill the gap.”
Answer: Saudi Arabia has no intention of giving up the US for China
Warrant: Saudi Arabia wants to balance itself between the two
Turak, Natasha. “Threats of US Sanctions Could Accelerate a Saudi Shift Eastward .”

CNBC, CNBC, 23 Oct. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/10/23/threats-of-us-sanctions-
Champion Briefs 211

could-accelerate-a-saudi-shift-eastward.html.
Riyadh’s increasing engagement with eastern power centers is not necessarily new,
but this diplomatic crisis could spur its acceleration, according to Saman Vakil, a
research fellow at U.K. think tank Chatham House and a professor at Johns Hopkins’
School of Advanced International Studies. “In Riyadh, diversification of relationships
and not putting all their eggs in Washington’s basket has been a longstanding policy,”
Vakil told CNBC, describing energy deals with China dating back to the 1990s. “And it
could be in their continued interest, because if there are forthcoming sanctions from
the EU or the U.S. on human rights issues, obviously China’s policy of non-interference
would make sense for them, strategically speaking.” Still, the nearly 90-year-old
alliance — deemed a “special relationship” when diplomatic ties were first established
in 1933 — remains paramount to the kingdom’s stability, something Riyadh knows very
well. “A break with the U.S., any obvious rupture in the relationship is also not in their
interest,” Vakil added. “So they’re going to try to maintain these three different
portfolios.” “The House of Saud would be much weaker without U.S. support,” said
Eurasia Group’s Kamel, acknowledging Washington’s decades of military and
diplomatic backing.
Warrant: China doesn’t want to disrupt tensions

Relations.” Russia's Energy Goals in Syria - The Washington Institute for Near
East Policy, National Center for Investment Risk Assessment, 2 Feb. 2018,
www.washingtoninstitute.org/fikraforum/view/saudi-chinese-rapprochement-
and-its-effect-on-saudi-american-relations.
Champion Briefs 212

Security-wise, some analysts see Saudi Arabia as trying to create a strategic competition
among the great powers to gain weapons and security support, especially after the U.S.
appeared to respond weakly to Saudi security and military needs amidst security
challenges. This might open the door to China and Russia to exert influence in the
region, and coordinate their positions against Washington; thereby making the U.S.
either an ineffective player or out of the game in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Saudi
Arabia is aware that it is impossible in the short term to relinquish the U.S. role in
national security to China, which compared to the United States and even Russia,
remains less committed politically and militarily to its friends among the countries of the
region. Washington can bear the burden of military deployment, military progress,
and coalition building, while China has no such capacity nor the desire to clash with
the United States in the Middle East. Rather, China wishes to benefit from American
dominance there, which secures shipping routes for export oil to China without China
having to make any major investments to protect the region. Amid the current Saudi-
Iranian conflict, China is aware that there is no current alternative to American military
presence in the Gulf to limit Iranian influence, particularly since relations between Saudi
Arabia and the United States have progressed following the election of Donald Trump.
Trump is partnering with Saudi Arabia to limit Iranian influence and supports Saudi
reforms, whereby Saudi Arabia has begun to expand the number of American banks and
other economic ties in the Kingdom. The goal of China’s foreign policy approach is to
keep on friendly terms with all the major players and to avoid continual hostility from
several risks, including increasing Chinese involvement in the region’s security that
would affect American and Russian interests. Accordingly, the Chinese continue to
work within their narrow economic self-interest, and they are likely to continue this
strategy so long as regional conflicts do not pose a basic risk to Beijing’s plans.
Analysis: China is not a country who is actively seeking to disrupt American interests in an area
where they do not maintain the upper hand. China’s interests in the region are to maintain
their Silk Road initiative and lay low in the geopolitical sphere. Unless something occurs that
threatens their interests, China has no qualms about letting the US occupy its role as an arms
exporter to Saudi Arabia.
Champion Briefs 213

CON: THAAD exports key to prevent Iran attack
Argument: US arms sales to Saudi Arabia include the sale of missile defense systems such as
THAAD which are key to preventing attacks from Iranian forces.
Warrant: Iran poses a major security threat to Saudi Arabia
Cordesman, Anthony. “The Saudi Arms Sale.” Nuclear Stability in a Post-Arms Control
World | Center for Strategic and International Studies, 7 Jan. 2019,
www.csis.org/analysis/saudi-arms-sale.
“Third, Iran already poses a missile and chemical weapons threat and may pose a
nuclear one within the next three to five years. Upgrades of the Saudi Patriots create a
base for an integrated approach to air and missile defense. They lay the groundwork
for follow-on sales of advanced missile defense systems like THAAD, and an emphasis
on defense (not Saudi purchases of missiles or nuclear systems). Coupled with recent
U.S. offers of "extended regional deterrence" and the creation of a Saudi Air Force
that is more of a threat to Iran than Iran’s conventional missiles are to Saudi Arabia,
they offer the best hope of both giving Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states security and
stopping a nuclear arms race in the region.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in US missile defense systems
Macias, Amanda. “Saudis, US Take a Significant Step toward Closing $15 Billion Deal for
Lockheed THAAD Missile System.” CNBC, CNBC, 29 Nov. 2018,
www.cnbc.com/2018/11/28/saudi-arabia-close-to-clinching-15-billion-deal-to-
buy-thaad-missile-system.html.>
Champion Briefs 214

“The sale of the THAAD missile defense system benefits U.S. national security by
supporting the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of
the growing ballistic missile threat from the Iranian regime and Iran-backed extremist
groups,” the spokesperson added. Thomas Karako, director of the Missile Defense
Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, echoed those notions. “It’s
a big step forward to strengthening missile defense capabilities in the Gulf, in a couple
of ways,” he said. “Besides probably being the largest missile defense sale to date, it
also represents an important political commitment by both the U.S. and the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia to counter Iranian ballistic missiles by every means possible.”
Warrant: The Iranian threat is real and credible
McCuin, Tom. “Saudis Sign the THAAD Deal.” ClearanceJobs, 30 Nov. 2018,
news.clearancejobs.com/2018/11/30/saudis-sign-the-thaad-deal/.
The agreement is a big deal for Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, but it is a bigger deal
for Saudi Arabia, which has faced a constant threat from Iranian-built missiles fired
from the Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. According to the Missile Defense Project at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Saudi Arabia has intercepted 106 of
those missiles through July 2018, primarily with the Patriot PAC-2 system. There have
been 43 strikes, although CSIS stressed that a strike is not necessarily evidence of a
failed intercept, as many of the strikes were in areas outside Saudi Arabia’s missile
defense perimeter.
Analysis: I think that this argument is pretty unique. For those who debated the South Korea
topic last year, revisiting this topic could create some cool debates. By cherry-picking the sale of
something like missile defense, you can kick out of a lot of responses that deal with weapons
being sold for the purpose of humanitarian abuse.
Champion Briefs 215

A/2: THAAD exports key to prevent Iran attack
Answer: THAAD has performed poorly when used and does not provide adequate security for
Saudi Arabia.
Warrant: THAAD failed miserably in Saudi Arabia
Fisher, Max, et al. “Did American Missile Defense Fail in Saudi Arabia?” The New York
Times, The New York Times, 4 Dec. 2017,
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/04/world/middleeast/saudi-missile-
defense.html.
Instead, evidence analyzed by a research team of missile experts appears to show the
missile’s warhead flew unimpeded over Saudi defenses and nearly hit its target,
Riyadh’s airport. The warhead detonated so close to the domestic terminal that
customers jumped out of their seats. Governments have overstated the effectiveness
of missile defenses in the past, including against Scuds. During the first Gulf War, the
United States claimed a near-perfect record in shooting down Iraqi variants of the
Scud. Subsequent analyses found that nearly all the interceptions had failed. Had it
failed in Riyadh as well? The researchers scraped social media for anything posted in
that area and time frame, looking for clues. The pattern of missile debris littering Riyadh
suggests missile defenses either hit the harmless rear section of the missile or missed it
entirely. "You shoot five times at this missile and they all miss? That's shocking,” she
said. “That's shocking because this system is supposed to work.”
Answer: Saudi Arabia has diverted its interest to buying missile defense from Israel
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has purchased Israel’s Iron Dome
Champion Briefs 216

Brummer, David. “Saudi Arabia Reportedly Purchases Israel's Iron Dome Missile
System.” Breaking Israel News | Latest News. Biblical Perspective., Breaking
Israel News | Latest News. Biblical Perspective., 13 Sept. 2018,
www.breakingisraelnews.com/113759/saudi-arabia-israel-iron-dome/.
Reports have surfaced – in Arabic language newspapers, such as the London-based Al-
Khaleej Online – as well as Israel-based news outlets that Saudi Arabia has purchased
Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. There are several elements to the supposed
deal – which the Saudis sought – to better-protect them against Iranian-backed Houthi
rebels in Yemen. It is thought that the United States helped mediate the deal, which
included further plans to reach an agreement on broad military cooperation between
the two countries. The Al-Khaleej story – published on Thursday – cited “high-level
diplomatic sources” as revealing that Riyadh had purchased the Israeli system, with
counter claims that Israel was highly reluctant to sell the Iron Dome to an Arab nation.
There was no confirmation by Saudi officials, and Israeli security officials strongly denied
the report, the Haaretz daily said. The deal is thought to be worth tens of millions of
dollars, with the first stage of the deployment – along Saudi Arabia’s border with
Yemen – to be completed by December. The Saudis are attempting to create either a
deterrence or protective capability against Iran-backed Houthi rebels who have
launched missile attacks against Riyadh and Saudi targets with increasing frequency.
Warrant: THAAD has failed before, it will fail again
Ritter, Scott. “U.S. Missile Defense: Not as Effective As We Think.” The American
Conservative, 11 Sept. 2017, www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/u-s-
missile-defense-not-as-effective-as-we-think/.
Champion Briefs 217

The Patriot missile defense system successfully intercepted less that 10 percent of the
SCUDs fired at Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab States during the Gulf War, and only 2
percent of those fired at Israel. The failure of the Patriot missile defense system to
perform during the Gulf War has been largely ignored. The reasons for this are many
and varied. There was an extensive and intensive effort undertaken by the Raytheon
Company (the manufacturer of the Patriot missile), the Army, and the Department of
Defense to challenge Postol’s findings, thereby muddying the waters. The fact that Iraq’s
SCUDs were inaccurate and did not carry WMD likewise skewed public opinion—a dud
warhead landing somewhere in the desert or ocean did not generate the kind of
excitement of a chemical warhead landing in a densely populated area. In the quarter of
a century that has passed since the Gulf War, the performance of the Patriot has
improved, as has missile defense in general. (Witness the success of Israel’s “Iron Dome”
system.) But the fact remains that, at the time of the Gulf War, the Patriot was a largely
untested system which failed to perform as needed. Had Iraq had better missiles, or if
they had been tipped with chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads, this failure could
have been catastrophic. My experience with the Patriot missile during the Gulf War has
colored my assessment of the deployment of America’s new front-line missile defense
weapon, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD) to South Korea. The
THAAD is intended to defend against the threat posed by North Korean short- and
medium-range ballistic missiles. Like the Patriot missile of 1991, the THAAD has only
been tested under carefully scripted peacetime conditions, with launch crews having
the advantage of long flight times (easy to track) and medium speed closure rates
(easy to kill) involving single missile launches.
Analysis: For those who competed on the South Korea topic last year, it is important not to just
throw random “THAAD bad” responses, given that much of the literature surrounding that is
specific to South Korea. The better responses to this argument lie in the idea that US missile
defense systems empirically do not work. Moreover, one can definitely make a topicality
response that arms sales do not include missile defense systems.
Champion Briefs 218

CON: Other European Countries would pick up the slack
Argument: Even if the United States were to stop supplying Saudi Arabia with arms, other
countries would surely fill the Saudi demand.
Warrant: British weapons also supply Saudi Arabia with airstrike capabilities
Trew, Bell. “‘Irresponsible and Incoherent’: British-Backed Bombing Raids Destroy UK

Aid in Yemen.” The Independent, 2 Nov. 2018,
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/yemen-saudi-arabia-
oxfam-aid-air-strikes-civilian-casualties-a8615081.html.
“On the one hand, British aid is a vital lifeline, on the other, British bombs are helping
to fuel an ongoing war that is leading to countless lives being lost each week to
fighting, disease and hunger. “The UK continues to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, whose
coalition bombing campaign in Yemen has cut off vital food supplies, destroyed
hospitals and homes, and hit aid programmes funded by British taxpayers.” The UK
Department for International Development (DFID) reported in June 2015 that coalition
warplanes destroyed a warehouse of UK-funded aid in an airstrike. DFID declined to
comment on the latest projects hit. Since Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies launched a
bombing campaign to oust the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in the spring of 2015, the UK
has sold an estimated £3.87billion worth of arms to Riyadh
Warrant: The UK has already made clear its intentions to maintain a long term security
agreement with Saudi Arabia
Thompson, Andrea. “US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control: Creating a Flexible,
Effective Foreign Policy Tool.” Defense News, Defense News, 10 Dec. 2018,
Champion Briefs 219

<www.defensenews.com/outlook/2018/12/10/us-undersecretary-of-state-for-
arms-control-creating-a-flexible-effective-foreign-policy-tool/.>
Maintaining national security is the UK government’s primary objective for its

relationship with Saudi Arabia. Its belief that it can achieve this is in part based on the
premise that Islamist-inspired terrorism forms a significant threat to both countries,
and as such, that cooperation on combatting terrorism and radicalisation is necessary
to keep the UK safe. A second assumption is that the UK’s national security is linked
directly to the security situation in Saudi Arabia, and the stability of the wider Gulf
region: the phrase ‘Gulf security is our security’ is repeatedly used by British Prime
Ministers and Foreign and Defence Secretaries. In November 2017, Prime Minister
Theresa May stated that ‘the UK will continue to work in close partnership with Saudi
Arabia as it builds on this progress and delivers its ambitious programme of reform,
Vision 2030’.22 Then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson also spoke about Vision 2030
during his visit to the country in January 2018, saying: ‘... as a world leader across a wide
range of sectors, the UK is well-placed to help Saudi Arabia deliver these changes’.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has already made a deal with Russia
Carrol, Oliver. “Russia and Saudi Arabia ‘sign $3bn Arms Deal’ on King Salman Visit.”
The Independent, 5 Oct. 2017,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-king-salman-visit-
saudi-arabia-moscow-vladimir-putin-a7985161.html.
According to the Kommersant newspaper, agreement has already been reached on a

$3bn (£2.2bn) deal to supply the Saudis with Russia’s most advanced air defence
missile system, the S400 Triumph. According to the publication, the deal will be signed
off at a WTO meeting at the end of October. There may be other deals forthcoming on
aircraft and helicopters – that depending on the success of talks. Defence is one of few
Champion Briefs 220

technological sectors where Russia can still claim to be a world leader, with over a fifth
of all arms deals in 2016. But with China and India, Russia’s biggest markets, looking to
move towards military self-sufficiency, Russia is with increasing urgency looking to open
new markets.
Impact: Deepening the Russia-Saudi alliance would significantly alter the middle eastern oil
market
Foy, Henry. “Russia-Saudi Arabia Rapprochement Reshapes More than the Oil Market.”
Financial Times, Financial Times, 30 Oct. 2018, www.ft.com/content/aa39b74c-
4f0c-11e8-ac41-759eee1efb74
Collaboration between Russia and Saudi Arabia, once seen as impossible, but now
holds sway over much of the global oil market. Amid crisis talks two years ago as the oil
market collapsed, the two countries took a decision to regulate global crude supplies,
propping up the market. The unexpected success and longevity of that oil deal, first
signed in December 2016, has prompted talks about corporate tie-ups and cross-border
investments, as well as deals for Russian companies to sell arms to one of Washington’s
main allies in the Middle East. The new Saudi-Russian relationship, when seen
alongside Moscow’s steadfast support of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and its oil
and gas investments in Iran, Iraq and Egypt, is reshaping the geopolitics of the Middle
East. At present, both sides appear keen to deepen the relationship. Saudi Aramco, the
kingdom’s state-owned oil company, is in talks with Russia’s Sibur about setting up a
joint petrochemicals factory, and is in discussions over buying a stake in Russia’s
upcoming $25.5bn Arctic LNG 2 project. Rosneft and Gazprom Neft, two Russian state-
controlled oil producers, are in talks with Aramco about potential supply sharing, and
joint research and development projects, while Riyadhhas agreed in principle to a
multibillion-dollar deal to acquire Russia’s S-400 missile defence system. “The Russia-
Saudi alliance has already demonstrated its leading role,” said Kirill Dmitriev, chief
Champion Briefs 221

executive of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. “In bilateral relations we expect that
co-operation between Russia and Saudi Arabia in Opec+ format will double mutual
investment between the two biggest oil producers within 3 years.
Analysis: I think that this argument will be read as defensive in most rounds, most frequently as
a block to the idea that Saudi Arabia would lose out on its weapons if the US pulled back.
However, the unique links into oil and Russian collaboration present a unique offensive route to
the ballot.
Champion Briefs 222

A/2: Other European Countries would pick up the slack

Answer: This is false. Many of the US’ allies in fact have begun curbing their exports to Saudi
Arabia.
Warrant: Germany has ceased its arms sales to Saudi Arabia
Rick Noack, The Washington Post, "Germany halts arms deals with Saudi Arabia, en
courages allies to do the same", 10/22/18,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/10/22/germany-its-allies-well-
halt-future-arms-sales-saudi-arabia-until-we-have-clarity-khashoggi-so-should-
you/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e13cd6cb1208
In a move that could put further pressure on President Trump to stop arms sales to
Saudi Arabia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced Sunday evening that her
government would not approve new arms exports to the kingdom until further notice.
“There is an urgent need to clarify what happened — we are far from this having been
cleared up and those responsible held to account,” she said at a news conference. “I
agree with all those who say that the, albeit already limited, arms exports can’t take
place in the current circumstances,” Merkel said. While the move affects future deals,
exports that have already been approved to the second-biggest foreign market for
German arms equip-ment will proceed for now but may be suspended in the coming
days. Germany is the first major U.S. ally to cast doubts on future arms sales after the
killing of Washington Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi, and the move is
likely to put pressure on bigger exporters to do the same. President Trump has ruled
out suspending arms exports but faces bipartisan calls to hold the alleged perpetrators
behind the writer’s killing account-able.
Warrant: Countries around the world are reducing arms sales as well
Champion Briefs 223

Patrick Wilcken, The Guardian, "Britain and the US must stop fuelling the bloody Saudi
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/20/yemen-arms-
saudi-arabia
This conflict has revealed in the starkest possible terms the real cost of the lucrative
global arms trade, not to mention the challenge of implementing the UN arms trade
treaty. Beyond the US and the UK, many other countries – including France, Spain and
It-aly – profess their support for human rights and adherence to the treaty while simi-
larly lavishing hi-tech weaponry on the Saudi coalition. However, on this grim anni-
versary for Yemen there are glimmers of hope. Across the world vocal criticism from
cam-paigners, journalists and, crucially, some politicians has begun to bear fruit. In
recent months, under growing public pressure, a host of European countries have sus-
pended arms transfers to the Saudi coalition. In other countries where arms exports
have continued, they are coming under intense scrutiny, with court challenges and
growing criticism from parliamentarians and the wider public. It’s just possible the tide
may be turning. In Greece, there was a storm of protest in December when news
emerged of a deal to send 300,000 tank shells to Saudi Arabia. Amid mounting pressure,
led by Amnesty Greece, a parliamentary committee broke with precedent and cancelled
the deal.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia has already invested too much in lobbying US congressional officials to
just turn a blind eye
Hennigan, W.J. “U.S.-Saudi Relationship Built on Oil, Weapons, Lobbying.” Time, Time,
18 Oct. 2018, time.com/5428669/saudi-arabia-military-relationship/.
Champion Briefs 224

“Saudi Arabia has spent at least $5.8 million on lobbying Congress this year, according
to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a government watchdog. But
recently filed documents detailing expenses and reimbursements put the actual
number closer to $9 million, said Lydia Dennett, investigator with the Project on
Government Oversight. “The Kingdom has a veritable army of lobbyists and PR firms
working to promote their interests in a wide variety of ways,” she said. The Foreign
Influence Transparency Initiative, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, recently
compiled records filed under Foreign Agents Registration Act that show in 2017 Saudi
lobbyists contacted over 200 members of Congress, including every Senator. The data
also found the Saudi agents contacted officials in the State Department, which
oversees foreign military sales, nearly 100 times.”
Analysis: With the current momentum that we are seeing in the status quo, most countries are
beginning to shy away from the idea of selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. Cooperating with a
country that just had a journalist murdered is not something that many European countries,
such as Germany and France, want to be involved with.
Champion Briefs 225

CON: Foreign Arms sales are a critical foreign policy tool
Argument: Arms exports to countries like Saudi Arabia are a key foreign policy tool that the US
often utilizes to bolster security cooperation, intelligence gathering, and even domestic
economic goals. However, their role in strengthening diplomatic relations cannot be
understated.
Warrant: Foreign arms sales are a critical foreign policy tool that binds partners to the US while
increase the interoperability of US systems
Mehta, Aaron, and Pierre Tran. “Mixed Signs for Foreign Military Sales Under Trump.”
Defense News, Defense News, 8 Aug. 2017,
<www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2016/11/28/mixed-signs-for-foreign-
military-sales-under-trump/.>
“WASHINGTON AND PARIS — Foreign military sales (FMS) are a critical foreign policy
tool, one used to bind partners to America while bolstering interoperability on US
systems — and providing a boost to domestic industry. The administration of US
President Barack Obama has made good use of FMS, setting records for foreign
weapons sales in 2015 and coming close in 2016. But as President-elect Donald Trump’s
administration spins up, the future of US sales abroad is unclear. As with everything
related to the Trump administration at this point, there is little hard evidence to go by.
But analysts are watching closely for signs of what might come. In particular, there is
concern that two areas of strong sales — the Gulf region and Europe — could be
impacted by either the policies of the next administration or the statements of the next
president. Analyst Byron Callan, of Capital Alpha Partners, wrote to investors the day
after the election, noting some of Trump’s campaign positions could impact foreign
weapon sales. “We would expect if countries increase spending, it would be to the
Champion Briefs 226

benefit of their own industries and not necessarily favor US defense firms,” Callan wrote
to investors, adding: “If a Trump administration takes a harder line on Muslims, that
may also bear on US defense exports to some Middle Eastern and Asian countries.”
Warrant: Weapon sales can bolster the security of the US and our allies, forge and strengthen
long-term relationships, and enhance military interoperability
“Arms transfers are a central pillar of America’s international security cooperation,

and they are also an important part of the American economy. This dual role as a tool of
both foreign policy and economic security — combined with the unique nature of the
goods and services involved — makes arms transfer policy uniquely complex. Well-
considered arms transfers can bolster the security of the United States and our allies
and partners. Examples include defending against external coercion and providing
capabilities in support of shared security objectives, such as countering terrorism,
trafficking and transnational organized crime. They can forge and strengthen long-
term relationships and enhance military interoperability. Arms transfers can help
maintain the U.S. military’s technological advantages and lower its own procurement
costs, strengthen America’s manufacturing and defense-industrial base, and even
facilitate ally and partner efforts to reduce the risk of military operations causing
civilian harm. In making transfer decisions, and in following up with our partners after a
transfer, the departments of State and Defense work to ensure that U.S. arms transfers
are used appropriately and that they deliver significant foreign policy benefits,
contributing to both regional stability and U.S. national security. Such positive outcomes
Champion Briefs 227

were very much in evidence to me when I traveled to Europe and the Middle East this
fall.”
Warrant: Arms sales to Poland has spurred vital security cooperation which is already
manifesting into results
“In Poland, I found a close ally whose location at the eastern edge of NATO has given it a
front row seat to Russia’s occupation of Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as
its military buildup in Kaliningrad. In this context, the U.S.-Poland defense trade
relationship mirrors the closeness of our alliance and demonstrates how we work
together to address shared security objectives. For instance, Polish procurement of
the Patriot air and missile defense system will increase the defensive capabilities of
the Polish military to guard against hostile aggression while also shielding NATO allies
who often train and operate within Poland’s borders. Poland’s investment in its F-16
fighter program enhances Poland’s ability to provide for its own territorial defense
and support coalition operations. In a gesture that is emblematic of our defense trade
relationship, the Polish government has invited the United States to be the lead
nation in the 2019 International Defence Industry Exhibition in Kielce, a role we have
enthusiastically accepted.”
Impact: Foreign Military sales help bring stability to areas of the world craving it, and helps
fortify alliances between the US and emerging partners.
Goure, Daniel. “Foreign Military Sales Remain An Important Tool Of U.S. National
Security.” RealClearDefense, 29 Feb. 2016,
Champion Briefs 228

www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/03/01/foreign_military_sales_remain_
an_important_tool_of_us_national_security.html
The FMS program serves many other purposes. The sales of U.S. arms and related items
to foreign countries helps reduce the cost of those systems to our own military. FMS
sales help to ensure the ability of U.S. allies to defend themselves and support the
maintenance of stable regional military balances. Equally important, FMS sales over
time establish enduring relationships between foreign governments and their
militaries and the U.S. When the U.S. military trains alongside those of allies equipped
with the same hardware, it helps to cement the bonds between our countries.
Moreover, it improves communications and understanding among these militaries,
often helping to inculcate U.S. values related to the use of military force. Foreign
militaries dependent on access to U.S. hardware, spare parts, software upgrades and
training are more likely to listen to this country when there is a dispute regarding
regional politics or defense issues. FMS has been particularly important as an
instrument for influencing foreign governments and shaping regional balances of
power in the Middle East. Following the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, the United States
completely reequipped the Egyptian military. The Egyptian-Israeli border has been
remarkably stable ever since. Sales of military aircraft, missile defense systems and
precision munitions to the nations of the Persian Gulf have been instrumental in
ensuring a stable balance of forces in that area.
Impact: Suspending arms sales to Saudi Arabia risks jeopardizing the US’s role as an arms
exporter in other markets by damaging their credibility.
Bissacio, Derek. “Examining U.S. Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia.” Army Leaders Recommend
Canceling Comanche Helicopter Program, Forecast International, 23 Oct. 2018,
<www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/196962/us-arms-sales-
to-saudi-arabia%3A-policy-options.html.>
Champion Briefs 229

"A more aggressive approach, however, would not be guaranteed to produce a better
effect on Saudi policy. A useful comparison may be the U.S. response to Egyptian
President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s overthrow of Egypt’s previous government and the
subsequent massacre of protestors in Rabaa. The U.S. criticized the government of
President Sisi and cut a significant amount of arms cooperation pending improvement
toward a more democratic system. Moreover, regularly resorting to playing hardball
with arms equipment can convince importers that a degree of diversification is in
order if the supplier is unreliable, hurting the supplier’s sales position and defense
sector – more so if the supplier is seen as making arms sales only to use them years or
decades later to coerce the importer over domestic policy. States do not tend to
approve of external criticism, regardless of whether on a moral basis their policies
might call for such criticism. It is true that the junior partner in an alliance does not
have a habit of bandwagoning,[vii] but when it does break with its ally, it can do so in
spectacular fashion.”
Analysis: This argument presents one of the most direct avenues to a neg ballot in any round.
Being that this argument presents an impact that can jeopardize the US’s position and
credibility on a global scale, its becomes really easy to weigh against a lot of the aff impacts.
Moreover, the empirics provided by the Poland example in the Thompson card and the Egypt
example in the Bissacio card lend significant credibility to the argument.
Champion Briefs 230

A/2: Foreign Arms sales are a critical foreign policy tool

Answer: Supplying the Saudi’s with weapons has directly fueled the conflict in Yemen, leading
to mass human rights violations and other atrocities.
Warrant: The United States is supplying weapons for this conflict
Patrick Wilcken, The Guardian, "Britain and the US must stop fuelling the bloody Saudi ‘
https://www.theguardian.com/commentis/free/2018/mar/20/yemen-arms-
saudi-arabia
“Despite all this, western countries, led by the US and the UK, have supplied the Saudi-
led coalition with huge amounts of advanced military equipment, facilitating a military
campaign characterised by repeated violations of international humanitarian law,
including possible war crimes. This conflict has revealed in the starkest possible terms
the real cost of the lucrative global arms trade, not to mention the challenge of
implementing the UN arms trade treaty. Beyond the US and the UK, many other
countries – including France, Spain and Italy – profess their support for human rights
and adherence to the treaty while similarly lavishing hi-tech weaponry on the Saudi
coalition.”
Warrant: The best way to condemn the crisis in Yemen is to stop arms sales
F. Brinley Bruton, NBC, "The U.S. wants the Yemen war to end. Will it stop
selling arms to Saudi Arabia?", 11/5/18,
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-wants-yemen-war-end-will-it-stop-
selling-n929921
Champion Briefs 231

Washington supports Saudi Arabia and its ally, the United Arab Emirates, through
billions in arms sales. It also refuels their jets mid-air, provides training and shares
intelligence. So, if the U.S. wants to try to force the Saudis' hands, it has leverage. The
best way to force the Saudis to change their ways is to stop sending weapons,
according to Human Rights Watch’s Yemen researcher Kristine Beckerle.
Warrant: Saudi attacks have wrecked economic development in Yemen
Walsh, Declan. “The Tragedy of Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen.” The New York Times,
26 Oct. 2018. NYTimes.com,
arabia-war-yemen.htm .
“The devastating war in Yemen has gotten more attention recently as outrage over
the killing of a Saudi dissident in Istanbul has turned a spotlight on Saudi actions
elsewhere. The harshest criticism of the Saudi-led war has focused on the airstrikes
that have killed thousands of civilians at weddings, funerals and on school buses,
aided by American-supplied bombs and intelligence. But aid experts and United
Nations officials say a more insidious form of warfare is also being waged in Yemen, an
economic war that is exacting a far greater toll on civilians and now risks tipping the
country into a famine of catastrophic proportions. Under the leadership of Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi-led coalition and its Yemeni allies have imposed a
raft of punitive economic measures aimed at undercutting the Houthi rebels who
control northern Yemen. But these actions — including periodic blockades, stringent
import restrictions and withholding the salaries of about a million civil servants — have
landed on the backs of civilians, laying the economy to waste and driving millions
deeper into poverty. Those measures have inflicted a slow-burn toll: infrastructure
destroyed, jobs lost, a weakening currency and soaring prices. But in recent weeks the
Champion Briefs 232

economic collapse has gathered pace at alarming speed, causing top United Nations
officials to revise their predictions of famine.”
Analysis: Given that nobody can deny the fact that the weapons being given to Saudi Arabia are
being used to fuel the Yemeni conflict, it becomes easy to weigh the atrocities of conflict over
maintaining one avenue of foreign relations. By stunting Yemen’s long term development, you
have a link into the long term stability in the middle east which can easily be painted as the
most important impact in the round.
Champion Briefs 233

CON: Saudi Arabia will just buy arms from Russia
Argument: Stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia will have no effect because the Saudis will
simply buy weapons from Russia
Warrant: The Saudis could afford to change suppliers
Deirdre Shesgreen. “Weapons sales a flashpoint as President Trump presses Saudi

Arabia over missing journalist” Oct. 16, 2018. USA Today,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/10/16/u-s-weapons-sales-
saudis-flashpoint-debate-over-missing-journalist/1661290002/
“If we canceled, they would buy from the Russians and the Chinese because they can
afford it and it would send us a message,” Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for
foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think
tank, said Saudi Arabia. “It would decrease our leverage and we don’t have someone
else” in the region to partner with on other vital foreign policy matters. Caverley said
there’s a middle ground between canceling all sales and renegotiating the broader U.S.-
Saudi alliance. “Arms deals are part of an overall bargain between two countries,” he
said. “You can change the terms of a bargain.”
Warrant: Cancelling weapons sales has geopolitical implications
Champion Briefs 234

“This isn’t just about military capacity,” said Jonathan D. Caverley, an expert on the
global weapons trade with the Naval War College. He said Saudi Arabia has purchased
almost all its weapons from the U.S. as a way to cement the U.S.-Saudi alliance and
“to bind the United States towards a large forward-operated presence in the Gulf.” “…
It would be weird if we did not take advantage of this (leverage) to execute our
national interest, without rupturing our relationship entirely,” Caverley added.
Khashoggi vanished two weeks ago while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Turkish
officials say they have evidence Khashoggi was killed and dismembered inside the
diplomatic compound. Saudi officials have called the allegations “baseless” and have
asserted that Khashoggi left the consulate unharmed.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is on the brink of buying major Russian weapons
A Saudi official told The Post that the kingdom was still "highly interested" in the deal.
"Like any military purchase," the official added, "there are negotiations happening
which we hope will conclude in the quickest means possible." But Trump
administration officials told The Post they worried the THAAD price would now
increase as US willingness to agree to co-production provisions Saudi Arabia has
requested in the contract will decrease. Perhaps more concerning for US officials is
Saudi Arabia's continued interest in the Russian-made advanced S-400 air-defense
system. According to The Post, the Saudis have resisted US requests to disavow their
interest buying the S-400 and have continued talks with Moscow. Saudi Arabia would
be only the latest ally with interest in the Russian-made air-defense system. Turkey
has already bought the S-400, earning rebuke from the US Congress and creating
concerns within the NATO alliance. India also recently agreed to buy the air-defense
Champion Briefs 235

system during a summit earlier this month — a deal that raises the prospect of US
sanctions on New Delhi..
Warrant: The Saudis might also buy American armaments
Christopher Woody. “The Saudis still haven't locked in the massive arms deals Trump
touted, and they're still talking to Russia about its advanced S-400 air defense
system” Business Insider. October 21, 2018.
https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-hasnt-signed-us-arms-deals-
talking-to-russia-about-s-400-2018-10
According to The Washington Post, among the agreements still up in the air is the $15
billion purchase of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System, made by US
defense contractor Lockheed Martin. In a sign of Trump's continued emphasis on arms
sales as a component of US foreign policy, White House senior adviser and Trump son-
in-law Jared Kushner personally intervened with Lockheed to secure a 20% discount for
the air-defense system. Yet Riyadh let a September 30 deadline to wrap up that
purchase come and go, according to The Post.
Impact: Arms deals with the US are stabilizing and the best option considering the alternatives
Deborah Jerome. “Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?” CFR, September 10 2010,
https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea
Is the deal a good idea for the United States and the Middle East? Three of four experts
contributing to this CFR.org roundup basically thought so. Anthony Cordesman argues
that arms sales makes sense in terms of U.S. oil interests, the U.S. need for an ally in
the region that can ease the burden on the U.S. military, and helping to stop a nuclear
arms race in the region. Loren Thompson and F. Gregory Gause III said the Saudis will
Champion Briefs 236

buy arms elsewhere if the United States refuses to move forward on the sale.
Thompson notes the package carefully balances Saudi requirements and Israeli fears,
and Gause suggests that even if the sale doesn’t create long-term stability in the
region, there’s likely to be some foreign policy benefit for the United States and for
the Saudis.
Analysis: This argument is very powerful because it functions as both offense and defense.
“They will just buy from Russia” de-links aff from getting impacts off of changes in Saudi
behavior. Then, neg can win by extending the stabilizing advantages of having US influence in
the Middle East.
Champion Briefs 237

A/2: Saudi Arabia will just buy arms from Russia
Response: Saudi Arabia will capitulate
Warrant: Stopping arms sales will help end the war in Yemen
“Coalition airstrikes must cease in all populated areas in Yemen,” Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo said last Tuesday. The same day, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said all
sides needed to take meaningful steps toward a cease-fire and begin negotiations in the
next 30 days. The comments raised the prospect that the Trump administration is
getting tougher with the Saudis over their military campaign against Iran-linked Houthi
rebels, which has killed more than 10,000 people in the desperately poor country since
2015. All sides have been accused of violating international law and committing war
crimes Washington supports Saudi Arabia and its ally, the United Arab Emirates,
through billions in arms sales. It also refuels their jets mid-air, provides training and
shares intelligence. So if the U.S. wants to try to force the Saudis' hands, it has
leverage.
Warrant: Experts claim the US has leverage
Champion Briefs 238

The best way to force the Saudis to change their ways is to stop sending weapons,
according to Human Rights Watch’s Yemen researcher Kristine Beckerle. “You’ve
gotten so many violations already over the past three and a half years, so what
Pompeo and Mattis should be doing is saying, ‘These are the benchmarks. We’re going
to hold up weapons sales until you actually fulfill these tasks,’" she said, referring to the
apparent bombing of civilian sites by the coalition. American arms deliveries to the
Saudis reached $5.5 billion last year, up from $1.7 billion in 2009, according to the U.K.-
based Campaign Against Arms Trade which compiled the figures using Department of
Defense statistics. The U.S. government agreed to sell more than $79 billion in arms to
Riyadh over that period.
Analysis: This response attacks the link of the argument on a fact level. It contends that it is
simply not true that the US lacks the leverage to stop Saudi Arabia, thereby disproving the neg.
Response: There is a moral imperative to distance ourselves from the Yemen conflict
Warrant: America is steeped in the ongoing war
Declan Walsh and Eric Schmitt. “Arms Sales to Saudis Leave American Fingerprints on
Yemen’s Carnage.” New York Times. 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/25/world/middleeast/yemen-us-saudi-
civilian-war.html
And at a flight operations room in the capital, Riyadh, Saudi commanders sit near
American military officials who provide intelligence and tactical advice, mainly aimed
at stopping the Saudis from killing Yemeni civilians. American fingerprints are all over
the air war in Yemen, where errant strikes by the Saudi-led coalition have killed more
than 4,600 civilians, according to a monitoring group. In Washington, that toll has
stoked impassioned debate about the pitfalls of America’s alliance with Saudi Arabia
Champion Briefs 239

under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who relies on American support to keep
his warplanes in the air.
Warrant: Support implicates the US in war crimes

Declan Walsh and Eric Schmitt. “Arms Sales to Saudis Leave American Fingerprints on
Yemen’s Carnage.” New York Times. 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/25/world/middleeast/yemen-us-saudi-
civilian-war.html
Obfuscation and impunity continue to characterize the coalition’s airstrike campaign.

The coalition rarely identifies which country carries out an airstrike, although the vast
majority are Saudi and Emirati, officials say. In July, King Salman of Saudi Arabia issued
an order lifting “all military and disciplinary penalties” for Saudi troops fighting in
Yemen, an apparent amnesty for possible war crimes. Over the summer, as Emirati
warplanes pounded the Red Sea port of Hudaydah, General Votel and the defense
secretary at the time, Jim Mattis, held at least 10 phone calls or video conferences with
Saudi and Emirati leaders, urging them to show restraint, a senior American military
official and a senior Western official said.
Analysis: This argument is strong because moral claims (if weighed correctly) can supersede
material consequences. Arguments about war crimes and the American obligation to not
participate in such atrocities may be persuasive, even in the face of some material losses.
Champion Briefs 240

CON: Stopping sales will hurt Saudi domestic reforms
Argument: Saudi Arabia is rapidly modernizing. This process is good for human rights and
economic development. Cutting US support stops this.
Warrant: The Saudis are modernizing.
Ian Black. “Saudi crown prince's modernization drive: How real is it?” Oct. 25, 2017.
CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/opinions/can-bin-salman-really-
change-saudi-opinion-ian-black/index.html
“Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia's young crown prince, has made headlines
across the world after promising the kingdom will return to a "moderate" form of Islam.
He also guaranteed a brighter future for his people, as he promoted modernization
plans to wean the country off oil, attract foreign investment and diversify the
economy. Bin Salman's strategy, Vision 2030, has looked stunningly ambitious since it
was unveiled last year, at a time when he was still deputy crown prince and not set to
inherit the throne. It has been accompanied from the start by a slick PR campaign,
which seeks to improve the kingdom's poor international image by emphasizing the
positive, the forward-looking and the needs of young people.”
Warrant: Salman’s changes are remarkable
Ian Black. “Saudi crown prince's modernization drive: How real is it?” Oct. 25, 2017.
CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/opinions/can-bin-salman-really-
change-saudi-opinion-ian-black/index.html
“The latest message from bin Salman included a reference to being "open to all religions," a
remarkable pledge in a deeply conservative country that is the birthplace of Islam and where
Champion Briefs 241

churches are banned and Jews not tolerated. It should perhaps come as no surprise that these
comments were made at an international investment conference -- tellingly dubbed "Davos in
the Desert" -- with a glittering VIP guest list and a large delegation of foreign journalists, who
would normally struggle to obtain visas. Last month's royal decree allowing women to drive
was an equally eye-catching element of bin Salman's national makeover. It certainly makes
sense economically, as it boosts female participation in the work force. And women can now
also go to sports stadiums.”
Warrant: The changes are real and substantial
David Ignatious. “Are Saudi Arabia’s reforms for real? A recent visit says yes..” Was
ington Post, 5 March 1, 2018.,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/are-saudi-arabias-
reforms-for-real-a-recent-visit-says-yes/2018/03/01/a11a4ca8-1d9d-11e8-9de1-
147dd2df3829_story.html?utm_term=.d21d46e4de76
“This is the beginning of justice. The prince is the same as any other citizen. That’s
something!” said Rakan al-Dossery, 26, a counselor at a local high school, of the anti-
corruption drive. “The entire world is changing. It’s not a surprise for the kingdom to
be changing,” said Abdul-Aziz al-Faraj, 29, a bank teller. One young man named Moab
said that in addition to his bank job, he has just opened a shop selling mobile-phone
accessories, a business once dominated by Yemeni expatriates. Explained Faraj: “A
while ago, the average Saudi wouldn’t think of starting a business. All he wanted was
a government job.” This is the door that seems to be opening in the kingdom —
toward a more modern, more entrepreneurial, less-hidebound and more youth-
-oriented society. It’s a top-down, authoritarian process, for now. But it seems to be
gaining momentum.
Warrant: Cutting support would be incredibly destabilizing
Champion Briefs 242

Michael Doran and Tony Badran “Trump Is Crude. But He’s Right About Saudi Arabia.”
New York Times. Nov. 21, 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/opinion/trump-saudi-arabia-
khashoggi.html
Let’s imagine Mr. Trump’s critics get their wish. This would serve only to validate Al
Qaeda’s anti-Saudi ideology, which depicts the royal family as American stooges.
Would a compromised crown prince be a more reliable partner for the United States
in stabilizing the Middle East? In all likelihood, sanctions would simply embitter Prince
Mohammed, who would respond by tacking toward Russia and China. The United
States could console itself by celebrating its staunch commitment to principle, but its
influence would diminish considerably. Less likely but worth keeping in mind is the
worst-case scenario. Prince Mohammed’s enemies, inside and outside the kingdom,
are numerous, and American sanctions on him would put a target on his back. In a
violent succession battle, what horrific forces would be unleashed? Outside actors,
such as Iran and Russia, coveting control of the kingdom’s oil wealth and influence
over the Islamic holy cities, would rush in. The United States would find itself
embroiled in another civil war as in Syria.
Impact: The slowly reforming Saudi Arabia is preferable to the alternatives
Michael Doran and Tony Badran “Trump Is Crude. But He’s Right About Saudi Arabia.”
New York Times. Nov. 21, 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/opinion/trump-saudi-arabia-
khashoggi.html
This is a false analogy. The Saudis are not the moral equivalents of Iranians and the
Russians. The kingdom has sheltered comfortably for over 75 years under the American
security umbrella, which the United States happily extended not least because the
Champion Briefs 243

Saudis and their oil have played a pivotal role in American economic strategies. Mr.
Trump’s statement acknowledged that the Saudis are assisting him with stabilizing
global oil prices as he seeks to quash Iranian oil sales. Whatever Prince Mohammed’s
faults may be, he actively supports the American regional order that the Iranians
openly seek to destroy. Mr. Trump’s critics are asking us to believe that the priority for
stabilizing the Middle East today is distancing the United States from one of its oldest
allies and instead working to achieve a balance of power between Riyadh and Tehran.
The Saudis, they claim, need us far more than we need them.
Analysis: This argument is powerful because it establishes the alternative to the status quo. If
Saudi Arabia becomes a worse actor after we freeze arms sales, we should not take such well
intentioned but short-sighted actions. Weigh this by reminding the judge that as bad as the
status quo is, a more illiberal Saudi Arabia would be worse.
Champion Briefs 244

A/2: Stopping sales will hurt Saudi domestic reforms
Response: Cutting weapons sales is the best way America can realize its foreign policy
objectives compared to other realistic measures
Warrant: Other measures would be even less effective
“On Oct. 10, Bob Corker and Bob Menendez, the top Republican and Democrat in the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, triggered the Global Magnitsky Act, a bipartisan
bill to punish human rights violators, to force the Trump administration to investigate
and consider sanctions against Saudi Arabia. The crisis over Mr. Khashoggi’s
disappearance piles on to growing — if belated — concern over Saudi Arabia’s
disastrous war in Yemen, which has produced little geopolitical gain and much human
suffering. If American officials really want to encourage a change in Saudi policy, they
should begin by looking at Saudi Arabia’s largest imports from the United States:
weaponry. Cutting off the flow of American arms to Saudi Arabia would be an
effective way to put pressure on Riyadh with little cost to the American economy or
national security.”
Warrant: The US can afford to lose Saudi weapons money
Jonathan Caverley. “Want to Punish Saudi Arabia? Cut Off Its Weapons Supply.” New
York Times, Oct. 12, 2018,
Champion Briefs 245

Despite recent increases, Saudi arms orders remain a manageably small part of the
United States’ exports. According to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, in
2017, a near-record year for annual purchases, the United States delivered $5.5 billion
worth of arms, 20 percent of all foreign military sales. That may sound like a lot, but
the United States exports only 25 to 30 percent of its defense industry production, so
exports to Saudi Arabia clearly remain a relatively small slice of the enormous defense
industrial pie. And contrary to President Trump’s statement, exports to Saudi Arabia
create relatively few American jobs. Based on Commerce Department figures, releasing
the billion dollars of munitions currently on hold in the Senate would “create or
sustain” fewer than 4,000 jobs. Here’s a more specific example: Publicizing a recent $6
billion helicopter deal with Saudi Arabia, Lockheed Martin predicted that it would
“support” 450 American jobs.
Analysis: This argument is smart because it frames the resolution in the context of its
alternatives. There are enormous political pressures to take action against Saudi Arabia. The
choice is not ‘cut weapons sales’ or ‘nothing’, it is ‘cut weapons sales’ or something much
worse. By framing the withdrawal of weapons as the best possible options, aff teams change
the neg narrative.
Response: Weapons sales would be very effective at producing change
Warrant: Saudi Arabia massively relies on US weapons
Saudi Arabia is in the middle of a major war, and more than 60 percent of its arms
deliveries over the past five years came from the United States. The Saudi military
Champion Briefs 246

relies not just on American tanks, planes and missiles but for a daily supply of
maintenance, training and support, such as intelligence and refueling. In the longer
term, almost all of Saudi Arabia’s remaining exports come from Europe. To truly squeeze
Saudi Arabia, a coordinated embargo — much like the one now in place against Russia
— would be necessary but relatively easy. European governments already feel strong
domestic political pressure not to export to regimes like Saudi Arabia. Transforming the
Saudi military to employ Russian, much less Chinese, weapons would cost a fortune
even by Gulf standards, would require years of retraining and would greatly reduce its
military power for a generation. Russia cannot produce next-generation fighter aircraft,
tanks and infantry fighting vehicles for its own armed forces, much less for the export
market. China has not produced, never mind exported, the sophisticated aircraft and
missile defense systems Saudi Arabia wants.
Warrant: The US has provided diplomatic cover to Saudi Arabia for paltry amounts of money
Last month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo certified that Saudi Arabia was minimizing
civilian casualties in the Yemen air campaign apparently to avoid jeopardizing $2 billion
in weapons sales. That small number does not show how powerful the Saudis are so
much as how cheaply the United States can be bought. Given these sales’ low domestic
economic impact and the enormous costs of going elsewhere for Saudi Arabia, the
United States has the preponderance of influence in this arms trade relationship. It
should act accordingly
Analysis: This argument is strong because it demonstrates the effectiveness of American action.
Once this link is won, an aff team only needs to weigh the massive loss of human life in Yemen
against the small reforms happening in Saudi Arabia. It should be simple to claim that stopping
an ongoing civil war outweighs some domestic reforms.
Champion Briefs 247

Feb2019pf PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Feb2019pf PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feb2019pf PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright 2019 by Champion Briefs, LLC

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in

The Evidence Standard

1. We will never falsify facts, opinions, dissents, or any other information.

the source of the information is legitimate.

with clarity if we learn that a third-party has attempted to commit deception.

inaccurate methodologies to reach a conclusion or prove a point.

distributed by ourselves or by any third-party.

multitude of perspectives and schools of thought.

and vision of this activity.

The Evidence Standard .......................................................................................4

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

deep into specific avenues of argumentation.

teams are often operating at their best.

connection with the judge.

Before getting into specific arguments, it is important to go over some of the

costs compared to the alternatives, it should not be adopted.

difference lies in a team’s ability to articulate why these incentives matter.

economic development. It would be a mistake to be so taken with a single vision of foreign

international community is already taking is a necessary prerequisite to generating offense for

royal family, but in distinct ways.

military adventurism in Yemen not worthwhile for the Saudi government.

labor, and kill journalists abroad.

The affirmative impacts of massive human rights violations are unlikely to be

hurting the current Saudi regime and/or pushing it towards Russia.

armaments to make them an incredibly powerful military.

This topic promises to be very interesting. Good luck!

About Jakob Urda

winners of the NCFL national tournament, Harvard, and Blake.

Topic Analysis by Belén Mella

sure to make for productive and interesting debates.

Salman, crown prince since mid-2017.

greater... in 2017 than they were a decade earlier.8”

Government of Saudi Arabia, and for other purposes.10”

jobs than defense spending does.15”

twenty years a strong incentive to work with the United States.20”

policymakers might be missing. I wish everyone the best of luck!

Topic Analysis by Zachary Ginsberg

debate on this topic.

understanding of the situations at hand.

we even diplomatic allies with them to begin with?

happen when the United States takes such a big action.

even in preliminary rounds.

Of course, despite the pressure and seemingly daunting competition, it is important to

look forward to.

Strategy and Weighing

arguing for the short term.

probability than the con’s long-term impacts.

and have agreed for years if not their whole lives.

the judge, ultimately making their decision a lot easier.

How does one do this? I have a few suggestions.

Let’s give some examples for both.

It is important to note that generally impacting out to “soft power” or “diplomacy” is

relationship for the judge.

other conflicts as well if we weren’t acting as a counterweight to their involvement. This

effectively beats out the pro on their own impact.

About Zachary Ginsberg

The Economics of Arms Sales