NEG

1NC Shell
 1NC
Dollar hegemony stable now
Lloyd 6/4 (Colin Lloyd, macroeconomic commenters, writer and presenter,
contributor to several free market publications. 4 June 2019. "U.S. Dollar
Supremacy Could Quickly Fade". American Institute for Economic
Research.https://www.aier.org/article/us-dollar-supremacy-could-quickly-fade)
Being and remaining a reserve currency is closely tied to four broad factors: the amount of non-
domestic debt denominated in your currency, the value and volume of cross-border contractual
obligations which designate your currency as the medium of exchange, the amount of currency
reserves in issue, and perhaps an arcane proposition in a fiat currency world, the international
desirability of your currency as a store of value. The US dollar currently commands this privilege .
It was by no means the first reserve currency ; the Roman Denari was used throughout their empire in ancient
times, during the middle ages, the Venetian Ducato and Florentine Florin gained credence. The US dollar’s predecessor,
Sterling, achieved its time in office as a result the decline of French dominance after the
Napoleonic Wars. British trade flourished and with it the merchants’ needs finance. The discount
houses of Lombard Street, insurance brokers of Lloyd’s coffee house and even the stock jobbers’ of Change Alley swiftly responded,
creating the necessary financial instruments for Sterling to emerge as the preeminent currency
of international trade and finance. You will note that trade followed by finance, for that is how the relationship began,
with trade as the master and finance the servant. The passing of the baton from the UK to the US resulted from two disastrous and
expensive world wars and the subsequent demise of British Empire and influence. As part of the Bretton Woods agreement, under
the gold exchange standard, the US dollar became the instrument of conversion whilst it was pegged to gold at US$35/oz. By the
1960s, however, cracks were beginning to show. These economic conflicts between short-term, domestic and long-term,
international objectives, for the manager of the reserve currency, were first defined by Robert Triffin. In 1971 Triffin’s dilemma
became reality with the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement. Oil,
notionally blamed for the collapse, was, by
this stage, no longer priced in Sterling but in US dollars. Gold was gone but the vast trade in oil
allowed the US dollar to retain its position through its sheer volume of transactions. A mixture of
inertia (what economists call a network externality), military might and relative value (when
compared with more inflation-bent regimes) rendered the US dollar still supreme. In a 2016 essay for
Brookings - The dollar’s international role: An “exorbitant privilege”? former Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, highlighted
the following factors
which have allowed the Dollar to maintain its position: Stability of value. Since
the mid-1980s, the Fed has done a good job keeping inflation low and stable. Liquidity. U.S.
financial markets, especially the U.S. Treasury market, are the deepest and most liquid in the
world… Safety. Despite Congressional shenanigans surrounding the debt limit, there is a large
supply of dollar assets considered to be very safe, including Treasury securities… Lender of last
resort. The Fed served as a backstop provider of dollars during the financial crisis by instituting
currency swaps with fourteen central banks, including four in emerging markets . Whilst many years of
research has been undertaken in an attempt to calculate the value of being the reserve currency, Barry Eichengreen description is
most succinct: "It costs only a few cents for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to produce a $100 bill, but other countries had to
pony up $100 of actual goods in order to obtain one."

U.S. monetary hegemony requires support of the Saudi petrodollar - they will
only use it if we continue selling arms
Hedge ’18 (9/28/18, Power Hedge || Hedge is an independent stock research and analysis firm with a passion for macro- and
microeconomic analysis. Power Hedge focuses our research primarily on dividend-paying, international companies of all sizes with
sustainable competitive advantages. Power Hedge is neither a permabear nor a permabull. However, we believe that, given the
current structural problems in the United States, the best investment opportunities may lie elsewhere in the world. || The Dollar's
Days As Reserve Currency May Be Numbered, Seeking Alpha || https://seekingalpha.com/article/4208881-dollars-days-reserve-
currency-may-numbered)
I discussed much of the history of how the U.S. dollar became the de facto standard of trade in my previous articles on this topic. In
short, it began following the Nixon shock of the early 1970s when, after removing the direct convertibility between the U.S. dollar
and gold, the President Richard Nixon sent Henry Kissinger to Saudi Arabia to barter a deal meant to strengthen the U.S. dollar,
a deal was reached in which the Kingdom
which was falling quickly against other currencies at the time. Eventually,
would require all transactions for its oil to be conducted in U.S. dollars and the United States
would supply it with weapons and protection. As Saudi Arabia was the largest exporter of oil in
the world at the time, other oil producers followed suit for convenience. This forced oil-
importing countries to buy dollars on the foreign exchange market in order to pay for the oil
that they import. It also resulted in oil-exporting nations accumulating stockpiles of U.S. dollars,
which were then used to purchase U.S. Treasury securities. This system thus had the desired
effect of boosting the value of the U.S. dollar above where it would otherwise be based on
fundamentals and lowering interest rates in the United States. Thus, the artificial demand for U.S. dollars and
Treasury assets has bestowed a unique privilege on the nation's economy.

Dollar collapse decks global trade and retrenches the US – that leads to a
laundry list of impact; food wars, unemployment, democratic collapse, ending
US primacy
Eric Hammer ’11 (Eric Hammer is a FTMDaily Contributing Writer for Follow the Money, and
investment and gold trading agency based in the US. https://followthemoney.com/7-economic-
consequences-of-a-dollar-collapse/) //AFu
Since World War II, the United States Dollar has been considered the world’s reserve currency,
i.e. the money held by foreign banks to back up their own currency. However, a number of recent events have caused some analysts
to begin questioning whether that dominance will continue for foreseeable future. These events include murmurings from the
Chinese government that they want a new reserve currency to be created based on a basket of currencies and whispers from some
Middle Eastern oil barons that they would like to start pricing oil in Euros instead of dollars. While no one can say for certain what
the future will bring and how governments of the world will treat the dollar going forward, there are a number of precedents that
can be instructive in helping us understand what could happen if the worst happens and the dollar is suddenly uncoupled from the
world economy as the world reserve currency. Note that this would be a worst case scenario where there was a sudden change
rather than a gradual one. Given the Federal Reserve’s penchant for simply printing more moneywhenever there is a need to borrow
additional cash, the value of the dollar once it has been removed as the world’s reserve currency would plummet dramatically
against other world currencies. This would have a number of effects on the American economy and way of life. 7 Economic
Consequences of a Dollar Collapse 1) Bank run. The first thing that is likely to happen in such an event is that
there will be a
bank run, as there was after the stock market crash in 1929. With dollars suddenly falling rapidly in value,
people will try to withdraw their money and change it to something else quickly before it
becomes worthless. 2) Capital controls. Next, the government would pass laws to restrict the ability
of private citizens to convert their dollars into foreign currencies. This would be done in order to “protect” the
dollar so that it doesn’t fall any further. 3) Rising unemployment. Unfortunately, because we live in a globalized economy,
protecting the dollar in this way could lead to severe problems at home. Unemployment could rise dramatically

as manufacturers find it impossible to purchase needed parts from other parts of the world, which

would be prohibitively expensive . 4) Soaring consumer prices. Similarly, retail sales would suffer
as imported goods become pricier. 5) Food scarcity. Scarce food supplie s could set in as well because the cost of
purchasing food is tied in large part to the price of oil , which would now have to be
purchased with expensive foreign currency . 6) Public riots. In extreme cases, rioting could ensue and
martial law could be imposed in order to restore order.
Retrenchment leads to U.S. wars with NoKo, China, Russia, and Iran -- goes
nuclear
Hal BRANDS AND Eric S. EDELMAN 17. **Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of
Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. **Counselor,
CSBA; Undersecretary of Defense (2005-9). “Avoiding a Strategy of Bluff: The Crisis of American
Military Primacy.” Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. March 20.
http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/avoiding-a-strategy-of-bluff-the-crisis-of-american-
military-primacy.
If strategy is the calculated relation of means to ends, then today America is careening toward strategic
insolvency. Following the Cold War, the United States possessed unrivaled military primacy, both globally and in all the world’s
key strategic theaters. Yet today, Washington faces military challenges that are both more severe and
more numerous than at any time in decades, precisely as its own defense cutbacks have significantly reduced U.S.
military capabilities. The United States confronts challenges from revisionist great powers such as

China and Russia , aggressive rogue states such as Iran and North Korea , and international
terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and the I slamic S tate. At the same time, constant-dollar
defense spending fell from $768 billion in 2010 to $595 billion in 2015 , the fastest drawdown—in
percentage terms—since the Korean War. The result has been a creeping crisis of American military
primacy, as the margin of superiority to which the United States has become accustomed has
diminished, and a growing gap between U.S. commitments and capabilities has emerged .
This state of strategic insolvency poses numerous dangers to both the United States and the broader
international order that American grand strategy has traditionally supported . It will
undermine U.S. alliances , by creating new doubts regarding the credibility of Washington’s
guarantees. It will undercut deterrence , by tempting adversaries such as Russia , China , and
Iran to calculate that the United States may be unwilling—or unable—to oppose aggression. It
will make for far harder fights should conflict erupt in key areas from Europe to the Middle
East to East Asia, and it may ultimately result in a situation in which the United States simply
cannot defend countries it has pledged to defend . The United States would currently face grave difficulties
defending the Baltic states from a Russian assault, for instance; the military balance around Taiwan and elsewhere
in East Asia has also eroded dramatically. Finally, as U.S. military power becomes less imposing,
U.S. diplomacy is likely to encounter greater difficulties as well. American officials continually aver that
the U.S. military is the finest fighting force in the history of the world, but today, U.S. military power has become
dangerously insufficient relative to the grand strategy and international order it has
traditionally supported.
Great powers facing strategic insolvency have three basic strategic options. First, the United States could decrease its
global commitments, thereby bringing its strategic obligations back into alignment with a diminished military resource base.
In practice, this might mean dispensing with U.S. security commitments to the most geographically exposed allies and partners—
such as Taiwan and the Baltic states—in hopes of reconsolidating a more defensible strategic perimeter. Yet
the appeal of
this option is largely illusory , for even reducing defense spending will not come close to
balancing the U.S. federal budget absent major changes in tax and entitlement policies , and
U.S. retrenchment from East Asia, the Middle East, or Eastern Europe is likely to generate
profound geopolitical instability . Aggressive revisionist powers may well be emboldened by
U.S. retreat; remaining U.S. allies may lose confidence in the credibility of American defense
pledges. Retrenchment may somewhat narrow the gap between U.S. capabilities and
commitments in the short run, but only at the likely price of a further erosion of the global
order that U.S. strategy has been meant to defend.
A second option is living with greater risk. In practice, this would mean either
gambling that enemies will not test
increasingly precarious commitments or employing riskier approaches—such as relying on
nuclear weapons or other escalatory strategies—to sustain those commitments . This approach has a
certain intuitive appeal—it substitutes deterrence by punishment for deterrence by denial—and the United States indeed relied on
such approaches during the Cold War. Yet it also entails profound liabilities. Simply hoping that exposed commitments will not be
challenged could work for a time, but this approach carries enormous risk that those guarantees will
eventually be tested and found wanting, with devastating effects . Likewise, more escalatory
approaches to deterrence may lack credibility—if America is not willing to bear the fiscal costs
associated with making its defense commitments credible through conventional means,
would it really risk the astronomically higher costs associated with nuclear escalation in a
conflict over Taiwan or the Baltic states? This approach thus risks leading the United States into a
trap where, if its interests are challenged, it is confronted with a choice between pursuing
escalatory options that carry a prohibitive price or simply acquiescing to aggression.
NEG - Impact Modules
 **Laundry Lists**
Dollar collapse leads to a laundry list of impacts – global economic collapse,
stock panic, social upheaval, governmental collapse
Nwogu ’19 (Meziechi Nwogu analyzes geopolitics, the global economy, and the military affairs
that impact our world. He works for the Medium. https://medium.com/@meziechinwogu1/the-
coming-collapse-of-the-u-s-economic-system-blame-the-u-s-dollar-b4c4238741a4) //AFu
In my own opinion, the greatest threat the United States faces in the 21st century is not Russia,
China, Iran, or Climate Change; but rather, the reckless monetary and fiscal policies of the
United States. Should the U.S. Dollar collapses, it will be the single most substantial affair in
human history . No money in human account has ever had an extraordinary impact globally
as the U.S. Dollar. All other currency crises have been regional in nature, and there were
other currencies for people to use. A U.S. Dollar collapse would be global, and it will bring
down all other fiat currencies. History is filled with sudden currency collapses. Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Argentina, and
Weimar Republic-Germany have each experienced awful currency crises since the 1900s. The cause any currency collapse is usually
the lack of faith in the stability of the currency for trade and exchange. As soon as users stop believing that a currency is useful, due
to inflation and low growth, that currency is in serious trouble. The Strength of the U.S. Dollar Since the Bretton Woods Agreement
in 1944, governments and central banks have relied heavily on the U.S. dollar to support the
value of their currencies. As a reserve currency status, the U.S. dollar receives extraordinary acceptability in international
trade. However, the U.S. Dollar is not the only reserve currency in the world. The British pound sterling, Euro, Japanese yen and
Chinese yuan are also members of the reserve currency club. The rationale for the U.S Dollar to have competitors is to it create
alternatives in the event the U.S. Dollar collapses, and for the global economy to continue humming along. The Weakness of the U.S.
Dollar The weakness of the US dollar is primarily that it is a fiat currency just like every other
major global currencies . Without the discipline of the gold standard, governments print too much money for political
purposes. If the US Federal Reserve prints too much Dollars, the value of the currency will fall. Fortunately, apart from the United
States, nearly all the reserve currency implement similar monetary policies like the United States. Will the U.S. Dollar Collapse? The
question isn’t if the U.S. Dollar will collapse… but rather, when. What would cause a U.S. economic
collapse? The United States cannot sustain the national debt that it got at $22 trillion. As the national debt continues to increase,
interest rates must go up as well. If America’s debt is soo massive, why hasn’t it collapsed yet? The answer is simple: Major
economies like Japan, China, and the European Union still invest in the US economy. Also, the U.S.
accurately pays off its bonds worth trillions of dollars a year. Events that could trigger the U.S. Dollar
collapse First of all, the Federal Reserve starts to print too much paper money to pay for politicians’ spending program (Social
security, Medicare, defense spending, debt servicing) creating hyperinflation in the United States. Next, China implements its
nuclear option to dump its U.S. Treasuries holdings. China is the world’s biggest U.S. Treasury investor, owning over $1.12 trillion. By
continuously purchasing U.S treasuries, it keeps borrowing costs very low for U.S. companies and government. By dumping its
treasury holdings, bond yields would increase, and interest rates will rise, making it very expensive for the U.S. government and
companies to borrow fund their operations, budget deficits, and savings shortfalls. To avoid this problem, the Federal Reserve has
been stepping in to buy U.S. Treasury bonds. It may not be in China’s interest to dump its U.S treasuries; but it definitely has the
power to do it. If China does, other US debt holding countries could also dump their U.S. debt holdings, causing panic. Another
possible scenario is that OPEC oil producers suddenly decline to sell its oil in US Dollars . This could
result in an absolute loss of confidence in the US dollar , causing the Petrodollar system to
collapse . The Petrodollar system is an exchange of crude oil for U.S. dollars between
exporters and Importers. All leading indices and futures like the West Texas Intermediate
(WTI), North Sea Brent (Brent), and Canadian Crude Index are denominated in U.S. Dollars.
Faced with stag inflation, massive debt from the Vietnam War, massive balance of payments deficit, and excessive domestic
the U.S., in 1971, ended the Gold standard for the U.S. dollars. By 1974, the U.S.
spending habits;
was able to influence Saudi Arabia to encourage other OPEC members to normalize their oil
sales in U.S. Dollars. In return, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states secured U.S. military
assistance & protection during an increasingly volatile political climate in the region that
saw the Iran-Iraq War, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As such, the Petrodollar
system was born. The petrodollar helped lift the U.S. Dollar to the world’s leading currency. Every country that wishes to
import crude oil needs the U.S. Dollars to purchase the commodity. This means that foreign countries have to hold large amounts of
U.S dollars. However, they have been recent challenges to the Petrodollar system. With the decline in purchasing power of the U.S.
Dollar, China, in March 2018, launched Yuan-denominated crude oil futures denominated in CNY (Petro-Yuan) for oil marketing for
the Far East. As the world’s biggest importer of crude oil, Beijing has long felt that pricing all its millions of barrels of imports should
be priced in Yuan. As the world’s largest importer of crude oil, China saw it as a reasonable change to price the world’s most vital
commodity. What Would Happen in an Economic Collapse Modern
economies are built mostly on faith. People
have confidence in the U.S. Dollar because the U.S. economy is the biggest and most
significant economy in the world. Also, the U.S. economy frequently outperforms the
economies of Europe and Japan. The US dollar is backed up by the output of American
workers. When people do lose faith in the U.S Dollar, its value will plunge, the stock market
will crash, and the U.S economy will collapse. The U.S. National Debt is over $22 Trillion. However, the total the
US total debt (debt owed by state & local governments, Household, businesses, financial institution, and the Federal Government) is
a staggering $74 Trillion. The point I’m making is that this charade cannot continue much longer. China, the European Union, India,
Brazil, Russia, and other major economies are very aware of this coming crisis. It’s hard to imagine the U.S Dollar being replaced by
another currency as the world’s economic standard, but it could very well happen. It is possible to wake up one morning and see the
U.S dollar slide into a death spiral, stocks in a free fall, and hyperinflation. If the U.S. Dollar and the economy
collapses , the result will be the most significant stock market crash ever in the New York
Stock Exchange, probably 1000–2000 points in the first day . Thus, the major stock exchange
in London, Frankfurt, Tokyo, and Hong Kong will have to suspend trading. Of course, this
suspension will significantly increase the panic among the general population. Once people all over
the world realize that they are a significant stock market crash happening, there will be a run on banks similar to the 1930s. In
response, major financial institutions will put a freeze on most or all banking transactions, including credit card transactions. This will
significantly increase panic. Due to the bank freeze, employers
will be unable to make bank transactions to
pay their employees. With employers unable to access frozen bank accounts, people won’t be paid, bills won’t get paid, etc.
Consequently, most businesses will be forced to either go out of business or significantly reduce their workforce;
unemployment will become rampant. With millions out of a job, the number of unemployment claims will
skyrocket, bankrupting unemployment insurance programs in the major countries. When people
realize that the value of their hard earned wealth is about to evaporate, they will take drastic
measures to prevent it. Those who own stores and businesses will increase their prices for goods and services drastically to
survive the crisis. Panic hoarding of food, medical supplies, gasoline, heating oil, and other
commodities will erupt. Runaway inflation, gas lines, and rationing will begin. Widespread
violence will explode across America. That could range from inner-city riots or gang wars . The
breakdown of law and order will be the ultimate effect of rioting and looting, as they lose all
their sense of right and wrong and are increasingly empowered in their sense of anger, panic,
and greed. Major social upheaval will occur in America, and the fear of the unknown will set in amongst the

populace. The U.S. will be hardest hit because it has the largest economy , an enormous
national debt , an economy based on credit , and a population greatly divided by race,
ethnic origin, gender, color, religious beliefs, cultural differences, and financial status.
Dollar collapse decks global trade and retrenches the US – that leads to a
laundry list of impact; food wars, unemployment, democratic collapse, ending
US primacy
Eric Hammer ’11 (Eric Hammer is a FTMDaily Contributing Writer for Follow the Money, and
investment and gold trading agency based in the US. https://followthemoney.com/7-economic-
consequences-of-a-dollar-collapse/) //AFu
Since World War II, the United States Dollar has been considered the world’s reserve currency,
i.e. the money held by foreign banks to back up their own currency. However, a number of recent events have caused some analysts
to begin questioning whether that dominance will continue for foreseeable future. These events include murmurings from the
Chinese government that they want a new reserve currency to be created based on a basket of currencies and whispers from some
Middle Eastern oil barons that they would like to start pricing oil in Euros instead of dollars. While no one can say for certain what
the future will bring and how governments of the world will treat the dollar going forward, there are a number of precedents that
can be instructive in helping us understand what could happen if the worst happens and the dollar is suddenly uncoupled from the
world economy as the world reserve currency. Note that this would be a worst case scenario where there was a sudden change
rather than a gradual one. Given the Federal Reserve’s penchant for simply printing more moneywhenever there is a need to borrow
additional cash, the value of the dollar once it has been removed as the world’s reserve currency would plummet dramatically
against other world currencies. This would have a number of effects on the American economy and way of life. 7 Economic
Consequences of a Dollar Collapse 1) Bank run. The first thing that is likely to happen in such an event is that
there will be a
bank run, as there was after the stock market crash in 1929. With dollars suddenly falling rapidly in value,
people will try to withdraw their money and change it to something else quickly before it
becomes worthless. 2) Capital controls. Next, the government would pass laws to restrict the ability
of private citizens to convert their dollars into foreign currencies. This would be done in order to “protect” the
dollar so that it doesn’t fall any further. 3) Rising unemployment. Unfortunately, because we live in a globalized economy,
protecting the dollar in this way could lead to severe problems at home. Unemployment could rise dramatically

as manufacturers find it impossible to purchase needed parts from other parts of the world, which

would be prohibitively expensive . 4) Soaring consumer prices. Similarly, retail sales would suffer
as imported goods become pricier. 5) Food scarcity. Scarce food supplie s could set in as well because the cost of
purchasing food is tied in large part to the price of oil , which would now have to be
purchased with expensive foreign currency . 6) Public riots. In extreme cases, rioting could ensue and
martial law could be imposed in order to restore order.
China Overtake
 1NC - Version 1
Erosion of the dollar allows China to expand its influence—triggers Uighur
terrorism.
Skylar DRENNEN 17. Policy Analyst, Securing America’s Energy Future; Graduate Student,
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “What Does China’s Status as Largest
Oil Importer Mean for U.S. Interests?” The Fuse. August 23. http://energyfuse.org/what-does-
china-status-as-largest-oil-importer-mean-for-us-interests/.
With the rise of one power, inevitably comes the relative weakening of another. Losing its position as the world’s undisputed long-
time oil importer does have downsides. Principally, the
factors shifting global power from a unipolar to a
multi-polar model may threaten the U.S.’ sole-superpower position. The dollar has stood as
the dominant global currency since the launch of the Bretton Woods system, and the
transition from a gold-backed dollar to the petrodollar maintained American monetary
dominance. Now, as oil-producing countries hold fewer U.S. treasuries , and as the dollar’s
influence is chipped away , the U.S.’ longstanding monetary advantage could be at risk. Merely
promoting the yuan through oil payments will not create the multi-polar power structure that China wants, but it is a strategically
palatable move in a longer-term power-play.
There will be other implications of a stronger China that will receive mixed reactions in the U.S. The U.S. will lose some of
its clout in major oil-producing regions, for better or for worse. China’s closer diplomatic relationships
with countries that the U.S. has traditionally been the main powerful trading partner (most
notably Saudi Arabia ) will reduce Washington’s influence and grant Beijing a growing role in
global issues. This is not fully a bad outcome for the world or for the U.S., given that it could dial back on military engagements
overseas. But it does mark a major change for the U.S—which would have to adjust to no longer
being the biggest name at the table in international diplomacy . In such a case, conflicts in oil-producing
countries where the U.S. has interests will gain an additional dimension of complexity.
A Precarious Position
The most challenging aspect of increased reliance on imported oil is the political and investment risk that comes with closer ties with
oil-producing countries. The
Chinese strategy is complex and relies heavily on regional organizations
to solve problems. However in the case of the Middle East, in the era of renewed Sunni and
Shi’ite conflict , the regional powers often have diametrically opposed agendas . A growing
footprint in conflict-prone places may only heighten the potential for instability, forcing China
to act to protect its citizens and economic interests . In 2015, China deployed its first ever peacekeeping troops
to South Sudan, and this year it opened a military base near the strategically important Bab al-Mandab Strait in Djibouti. Reports
from multiple sources also suggest that Chinese patrols are operating in Afghanistan in an effort to maintain
border stability in the event that the United States pulls out.
If China’s economy becomes more dependent on foreign oil, then the CCP’s legitimacy will , in
many respects, be tied to the whims of the oil market . As reported by Bloomberg this year, although China’s
major oil investments have been constrained to mostly Iraq and Iran, Saudi Arabia is moving
to win Chinese loyalty and investments. Saudi Aramco is currently in talks to buy a $2 billion
and 30 percent stake in a refinery owned by China National Petroleum Corporation . This
agreement comes with hopes that the Chinese will buy major stakes in Aramco when it commences an IPO. China’s oil
acquisition strategy has thus far avoided areas where the U.S. has a strong presence .
Nevertheless, as China grows more reliant on oil from Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, the task of
managing a neutral position among trading partners will become increasingly more complex .
Tighter relationships with these producers will bring about an increased probability of
international interventions to protect China’s interests. To that end, China risks exposing itself to
the same types of long-term risks that the U.S. has seen from dependence on imported oil .
One Belt One Road and China’s future
China must grapple with these issues as it takes the not-so coveted position as the world’s top oil importer. Although one of the
main policy goals of the Chinese One Belt One Road (OBOR) policy is to increase energy security by diversifying supply and transport
routes, buying more foreign oil means higher vulnerability to supply and price shocks . The OBOR
policy is a massive investment undertaking of the Chinese government to create supply chains, build infrastructure, develop
markets, and diversify energy sources across Asia and reaching into Africa and Europe. One such approach involves constructing a
pipeline through Myanmar that bypasses the maritime chokepoint at the Straits of Malacca. The
OBOR initiative has
garnered significant attention for being—as one New York Times piece commented—a “more
audacious Marshall plan,” aiming to build global commerce “on China’s terms.” The same article
notes that this investment plan helps spur economic growth as a means of quelling the spread of
radical Islam across China’s shared border with Pakistan. With estimates of its Muslim
inhabitants ranging between 20 and 50 million, China has a larger Islamic population than
Syria. For this reason, the Chinese government has become increasingly anxious about its Uighur
population in the far west province of Xinjiang. It is possible that by increasing its presence in
the Middle East to secure oil supply, China will find partners that are ideologically outraged
by the way it treats its own Islamic citizens. There could be a time where China becomes both the
lead purchaser of the oil and the main target of state sponsored extremism , a position not unfamiliar to the
United States.

Uighur terrorism destabilizes Central Asia.

Robert D. KAPLAN 16. Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security; Lectured at military
war colleges, FBI, NSA, Pentagon’s Joint Staff, DIA, and CIA. “Eurasia's Coming Anarchy: The Risks
of Chinese and Russian Weakness.” Foreign Affairs 95(March/April): 36-9. Emory Libraries.
Then there are the growing ethnic tensions in this vast country. To some degree, the Han-dominated state of
China is a prison of various nations, including the Mongols, the Tibetans, and the Uighurs, all of whom have in varying degrees
resisted central control. Today, Uighur
militants represent the most immediate separatist threat. Some
have received training in Iraq and Syria, and as they link up with the global jihadist movement,
the danger will grow . In recent years, there has been a dramatic upsurge of bombings linked to
Uighur separatism in the region of Guangxi, a transit point on the smuggling route Uighurs take to Vietnam, proof
that terrorism will not be confined to minority areas in China's west. Beijing has tried to pacify
these movements with economic development for example, proposing the Silk Road Economic Belt in Central
Asia in order to undermine Uighur nationalism there. But if such immense projects falter because
of China's own slowing economy, separatism could explode into greater violence .
Even more so than Putin, Xi, with years of experience serving the Communist Party in interior China, must harbor few illusions about
the depth of China's economic problems. But that does not mean he knows how to fix them. Xi has responded to China's
economic disarray by embarking on an anticorruption drive, yet this campaign has primarily
functioned as a great political purge, enabling him to consolidate China's national security
state around his own person. Since decisions are no longer made as collectively as before, Xi
now has greater autonomy to channel domestic anxiety into foreign aggression . In the last three
decades, China's leadership was relatively predictable, risk averse, and collegial. But China's internal political
situation has become far less benign.
China's ambitions reach further than Russia's, but they have generated less concern in the West because they have been more
elegantly applied. Whereas Putin has sent thugs with ski masks and assault rifles into eastern Ukraine, Xi's aggression has involved
much smaller, incremental steps, making it maddeningly difficulty for the United States to respond without appearing to overreact.
He has sent his coast guard and merchant ships (rather than exclusively his navy) to harass Philippine warships, dispatched an oil rig
into waters claimed by both China and Vietnam (but for only a few weeks), and engaged in land-reclamation projects on contested
islands and reefs (but ones that are devoid of people). And since these acts of brinkmanship have taken place at sea, they have
caused no hardship for civilians and practically no military casualties.
Other Chinese moves are less subtle. Besides expanding its maritime claims, China is building roads, railways, and pipelines deep into
Central Asia and is promising to invest tens of billions of dollars in a transportation corridor that will stretch from western China
across Pakistan to the Indian Ocean, where China has been involved in port projects from Tanzania to Myanmar (also called Burma).
As China's economic troubles worsen, the elegance of its aggression may wear off and be
replaced by cruder, more impulsive actions. Xi will find it harder to resist the urge to use Asian
maritime disputes to stoke nationalism , a force that brings a measure of cohesion to societies threatening to
fragment.
Potentially adding to the danger are looming crises in the countries of Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
and Uzbekistan. The
continued stability of these authoritarian countries has made it easier for
China to control its own Central Asian minorities, but time may be running out . Some of these
regimes are still led by the same Brezhnev-era Central Committee types who have ruled since
the end of the Cold War. These leaders are now aging, their regimes enjoy questionable
legitimacy, their economies remain tied to China's and Russia's own slowing engines, and their
populations are growing more Islamic. Central Asia, in other words, may be ripe for an Arab
Spring-like eruption .

That goes nuclear.

Ivan LIZAN 15. JD, National University Odesa Law Academy. “Three Fronts For Russia: How
Washington Will Fan The Flames of Chaos In Central Asia.” Information Clearinghouse. February
23. http://tinyurl.com/pn3kpgy.
Method of destruction
The first way to destabilize Central Asia is to create problems on the borders , along with the threat
that Mujahideen will penetrate the region. The testing of the neighbours has already started; problems have arisen in Turkmenistan,
which has even had to ask Kabul to hold large-scale military operations in the border provinces. Tajikistan has forced the Taliban to
negotiate the release of the border guards it abducted, and the Tajik border service reports that there is a large group of
Mujahideen on its borders.
In general, all the countries bordering Afghanistan have stepped up their border security.
The second way is to send Islamists behind the lines. The process has already begun: the number of extremists
in Tajikistan alone grew three-fold last year; however, even though they are being caught, it obviously will not be feasible to catch all
of them. Furthermore, the situation is aggravated by the return of migrant workers from Russia, which will expand the recruiting
base. If the stream of remittances from Russia dries up, the outcome may be popular discontent and managed riots.
Kyrgyz expert Kadir Malikov reports that $70 million has been allocated to the IS military group Maverenahr, which includes
representatives of all the Central Asian republics, to carry out acts of terrorism in the region. Special emphasis is placed on the Fergana
Valley as the heart of Central Asia.
Another point of vulnerability is Kyrgyzstan’s parliamentary elections, scheduled for this fall. The initiation of a new set of color revolutions will lead to chaos and the
disintegration of countries.
Self-supporting wars
Waging war is expensive, so the destabilization of the region must be self-supporting or at least profitable for the U.S. military-industrial complex. And in this area Washington
has had some success: it has given Uzbekistan 328 armored vehicles that Kiev had requested for its war with Novorossiya. At first glance, the deal isn’t profitable because the
machines were a gift, but in reality Uzbekistan will be tied to U.S. spare parts and ammunition. Washington made a similar decision on the transfer of equipment and weapons to
Islamabad.
But the United States has not been successful in its attempts to impose its weapons systems on India: the Indians have not signed any contracts, and Obama was shown Russian
military hardware when he attended a military parade.
Thus the United States is drawing the countries in the region into war with its own protégés – the Taliban and Islamic State – and at the same time is supplying its enemies with
weapons.

So 2015 will be marked by preparations for widespread destabilization in Central Asia and the

transformation of AfPak into an Islamic State subsidiary on the borders of Russia, India, China, and Iran . The
full-scale war , which will inevitably follow once chaos engulfs the region, will lead to a
start of
bloodbath in the “Eurasian Balkans,” automatically involving more than a third of the world’s
population and almost all the United States’ geopolitical rivals. It’s an opportunity Washington
will find too good to miss.
Russia’s response to this challenge has to be multifaceted: involving the region in the process of Eurasian integration, providing military, economic, and political assistance,
working closely with its allies in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS, strengthening the Pakistani army, and of course assisting with the capture of the bearded
servants of the Caliphate.
But the most important response should be the accelerated modernization of its armed forces as well as those of its allies and efforts to strengthen the Collective Security Treaty
Organization and give it the right to circumvent the highly inefficient United Nations.

The region is extremely important: if Ukraine is a fuse of war, then Central Asia is a munitions
depot . If it blows up, half the continent will be hit .
 1NC - Version 2
Collapse of US dollar hegemony paves the road for China—allies will follow suit
Moore ’18 (3/1/18, Jeffrey Moore II || journalist for the OZY || Can Emperor Yuan Dethrone King Dollar As the World's
Currency?, OZY || https://www.ozy.com/acumen/can-emperor-yuan-dethrone-king-dollar-as-the-worlds-currency/83877)
China’s meteoric rise over the past half-century is one of the most striking examples of the impact of opening up an economy to
global markets that the world has ever seen. Over that period, the country has shifted from a largely agrarian society to an industrial
powerhouse, lifting nearly a billion people out of poverty and reshaping the world’s economic landscape. In the process, it has seen
sharp increases in productivity and wages that have allowed China to become the world’s second-largest economy.
A key obstacle preventing
But for President Xi Jinping, second place is not good enough to achieve the “Chinese Dream.”
the People’s Republic from reaching the summit of the economic mountain is King Dollar — the
world’s dominant global currency. In 2018, China could seek to dethrone King Dollar by forcing yuan-denomination of
specific commodities, marking a cataclysmic shift in the world financial order that’s been in place since World War II. For example:
As the world’s No. 1 oil importer, China may have the leverage to demand such a dollar-to-yuan switch, which would directly
And China changing to
influence nearly 40 percent of global oil production and create a massive oversupply of U.S. dollars.
yuan-denominated oil contracts is significant because it could begin to unravel the U.S. dollar’s
dominance worldwide and, in turn, lessen the United States’ ability to wield the soft power
associated with currency leverage.
The saying “the bigger they are, the harder they fall” is relevant here because the U.S. dollar is immense — it makes
up 64 percent of known central bank foreign exchange reserves; more than 85 percent of world forex trading (the decentralized
over-the-counter trading in foreign currencies); and 39 percent of all debt issued in the world. In addition, more than one-third of
world GDP comes from countries whose currencies are pegged to the dollar. The sudden fall of King Dollar would be very hard
indeed. It would lead to massive inflation in the U.S., threatening the smooth function of debt markets that make the financial world
go round.
And what are the black swans — low-probability, high-impact events — that could trigger such a global disruption? Key
developments over the course of 2018 could accelerate the onset of a previously dismissed yuan-denominated future, especially in
South Korea and Japan
Asia. If the U.S. decides not to respond to belligerent threats of a nuclear North Korea, for example,
could conclude China would be a better security guarantor and demonstrate their new
allegiance by dumping dollars and adopting more yuan.
Or could a gray rhino — an unforeseen event that’s less stealthy than a black swan but still camouflaged — overturn the old order?
China is already making moves to dethrone the dollar. In late July, China proposed pricing
After all,
oil in yuan to Saudi Arabia. China has been reducing Saudi Arabia’s share of its total imports, which fell from 25 percent in
2008 to 15 percent in 2016. Chinese oil imports rose 13.8 percent year-on-year during the first half of 2017, but supplies from Saudi
Arabia inched up just 1 percent year-on-year. With the U.S. increasingly becoming energy independent, Saudi Arabia may have no
other option than to yield to yuan-denominated oil in order to keep its biggest customer.
If that happens, the threat to the dollar’s hegemony would not be well-received in Washington, D.C., and the U.S. government could
suspend weapons sales to the kingdom. The knock-on political risks of switching from petro-dollar to petro-yuan are alarming.
Despite globalwide skepticism, Chinese media report that the plan for yuan-oil contracts is moving swiftly.
And that’s just oil, of which China consumes approximately 12 percent globally, according to the World Economic Forum. While oil is
the lifeblood of any industrial economy, the share of global consumption by China in other commodities is even higher, including
more than half of all aluminum and nearly half of all steel and copper.
Some experts believe that changing the world’s working currency would occur at a glacial pace. In fact, it could happen overnight in
response to geopolitical conflagrations. Like pressure building, undetected beneath fault lines, an unexpected and sudden release
could send King Dollar hurtling off its throne, with Emperor Yuan ready and waiting to take its spot. Such is the nature of black
swans.

Chinese dollar hegemony harms the economy and national security

Mitha 15 (Gulam ASGAR MITHA- writer at orientalismreview.org, an international e- journal
focusing on current political issues in Eurasia and beyond, “The New Global Economy: rise of
China and decline of USA”, https://orientalreview.org/2015/01/25/the-new-global-economy-
rise-of-china-and-decline-of-usa/)
The renminbi had a market share of less than 1% in 2009 but that share has been steadily growing where it has now reached a market share of 18% by mid-2014. In comparison
the market share of the US dollar is nearly 65%. In early 2013, the renminbi had ranked 12th place but by March 2014, the renminbi had climbed to seventh, behind the dollar,
euro, pound, yen, and the Australian and Canadian dollars when ranked by value of payments made in that currency. Another measurement of the renminbi’ s acceptance is the
number of global financial institutions doing business in the yuan. It has grown from a meagre 1000 in 2010 to over 10,000 in 2014. These numbers reflect the yuan gains as the

Chinese economy continues to grow and more countries continue to sign agreements in currency trades. Chinese currency manipulation and the
clandestine gold purchases by China (and now Russia) is likely to aggravate the currency war
looming on the horizon. In closing, I reiterate that Chinese currency manipulation and the clandestine gold purchases by China (and now Russia) are likely to
aggravate the currency war looming on the horizon. This will certainly lead to the decay of the US economic and political

domination and the emergence of new economies dominated by a basket of international

currencies to purchase oil replacing the dominance of the Petrodollar. The combined policies of
US Federal Reserve and the US Treasury are leading the nation towards an economic and
national security precipice. Jim Rickards said in a US Treasury meeting that “The Fed and the Treasury are the greatest threats to national security, not Al-
Qaeda.”

[ENTER -- Econ Terminal]

 EX - I/Ls
US dollar collapse allows the Yuan to become the global currency – that
cements Chinese hegemony
Thomas '15 (Jeff Thomas is British. He has lived multi-nationally since childhood, but resides primarily in the Caribbean. The
son of an economist and historian, he learned early to question governments as a general principle. He has bought precious metals
throughout his adult life. A confirmed contrarian and independent thinker, he describes his “qualifications” as not having pursued a
degree in conventional economics at university, having been surrounded with those from the financial industry, while not relying on
that industry for income and having chosen early in life to avoid residing in countries where he could not control his own future.
Although he spent his career creating and developing businesses, he has also written regularly for over thirty years on Austrian
economics, personal liberty and limiting government. He is a feature writer for International Man, in addition to being published
frequently in other publications. https://internationalman.com/articles/what-will-happen-to-you-when-the-dollar-collapses/) //AFu
It’s safe to say that the EU, the US, and quite a few other jurisdictions are nearing currency crashes, and
in all likelihood, the euro will go before the dollar. So, unless the EU has already prearranged a new euro, the US dollar might well be
chosen as an immediate solution to the problem, as the US dollar is presently recognised and traded throughout Europe. Therefore,
a relatively painless transfer could be made. However, the dollar, which is presently praised as being a sound currency, is really only
sound in relation to the euro (and some other lesser currencies). Once
its less stable brother, the euro, collapses,
the dollar will be exposed. As the US dollar is a fiat currency and is on the ropes, the US (and any
other country that is using the dollar as its primary currency when the time comes) will experience a currency emergency at the
street level that will be unprecedented. The big question that is generally not being discussed is: The day after the crash (and
thereafter), what will be the currency that is used to buy a bag of groceries, a tank of petrol, a meal at a restaurant? Certainly, the
need will be immediate and will be on a national level in each impacted country, affecting everyone.
I have discussed for some time that the US will be prepared ahead of time with a new, electronic currency. This will serve three
purposes: It will allow the US government to blame paper currencies for the crash, in order to distract the public from recognizing
that the government itself is the culprit. It will allow the US government to create a currency system that disallows the holding of
tradable currency by the population—that is, a debit card would be created by banks through which all transactions must pass,
assuring that all transactions are processed by (and thereby subject to the control of) a bank. It will allow the US government to have
knowledge of every penny earned and spent by any individual or organization, allowing for direct-debit income taxation. If the US
does institute such a system, US citizens will then become the most economically controlled people in the world, overnight. It’s likely
that a black-market system would spontaneously be created by US citizens in order to bypass the new government system. A portion
of daily trade would occur under the table. It would unquestionably be made illegal, and we can only speculate as to how prevalent
it would become: 10% of all transactions? 30%? Anyone’s guess. Certainly, the government would crack down, and penalties might
become severe. Elsewhere in the world, there would be greater freedom, but what would their currencies be? There are many
countries that presently use the US dollar as one of their official currencies. After a crash, the greater the link to the US dollar, the
greater the loss of economic freedom, although, in most such countries, the government is likely to be less efficient than in the US,
which would work in favour of the individual. Such countries would also have the option of switching from
the dollar to another dominant currency. With the euro and dollar gone, that currency might be the
Chinese yuan. The difficulty with this possibility is that, presently, the yuan is not in common use on the street. Adoption
of a currency such as the yuan would require a sudden switch in monetary policy, complete with
teething problems. However, recent developments amongst the BRICS and others indicate that many
countries are already seeing the writing on the wall and are readying themselves for the use
of the yuan as an alternate.
 EX - AT Trade War Thumps
No trade war thumpers—Chinese currency still popular even then
Yeung '18 (10/2/18, Karen Yeung || Karen Yeung joined the Post in 2017 after more than 15 years' experience on global
newswires in Hong Kong and Shanghai. She spent eight years in Shanghai and has received awards for best feature, analysis and
agenda-setting. || China's yuan more popular as reserve currency despite trade war, IMF data shows, South China Morning Post ||
https://www.scmp.com/business/money/wealth/article/2166652/chinas-yuan-more-popular-reserve-currency-despite-trade-war)
Central banks around the globe are investing in more Chinese yuan as part of their foreign exchange reserves, with the currency
moving up one notch in the global league table of central bank holdings.
Despite the progress, however, the yuan’s share of total reserves remains modest and well behind that of the “big three” currencies
– the US dollar, the euro and the Japanese yen – as a reserve asset.
The share of China’s yuan in global central bank reserves rose one position, overtaking Australia’s dollar, to take sixth place among
all currencies, despite mounting US-China trade tensions and a decline in the yuan exchange rate, according to the latest data from
the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Some central banks see the uncertainty emanating from the trade war as temporary only, and remain positive over China’s long-
term outlook
Holdings of yuan assets by global central banks increased for a fourth straight quarter to
US$193.4 billion in the second quarter of this year, to 1.84 per cent of all reserve assets, the IMF
data shows.
That compares with the yuan’s 1.40 per cent share in the first quarter, 1.23 per cent at the end of 2017 and 1.07 per cent at the end
of 2016.
“Some central banks see the uncertainty emanating from the trade war as temporary only, and
remain positive over China’s long-term outlook,” said Chris Leung, China & Hong Kong
economist at DBS Bank. “They may actually be adding to their yuan holdings because the
currency has fallen so much, making it a cheap investment.”
In the second quarter, the yuan’s value slid 5.2 per cent against the US dollar, as the greenback rose due in part to the continued
interest rate increases by the US Federal Reserve.
The yuan’s share of total currency reserves remains modest and well behind that of the “big three” – the US dollar, the euro and the
Japanese yen – as a reserve asset.
But the yuan still has a long way to go to match, let alone replace, the US dollar or even the euro or yen, as the world’s favourite
reserve currency. Reserve holdings in the yuan remains well behind the big three in terms of volume.
The share of US dollar reserves of global central banks shrank to 62.25 per cent in the second quarter, its lowest level since 2013,
while the euro was in second place at 20.26 per cent and the yen in third place at 4.97 per cent.
As China’s central bank props up yuan, the risk of depreciation falls
Global central banks have been gradually increasing the share of yuan in their foreign exchange reserve holdings since the IMF
included it in its Special Drawing Rights currency basket, officially making it a world reserve currency, on November 30, 2015.
As a payment currency for domestic and international merchandise trade, the yuan kept its position as the fifth most active currency
by value in August 2018, with a share of 2.12 per cent, according to data from global payments messaging system, SWIFT.
History shows that, while it is tempting to sail alone, countries must resist the siren call of self-sufficiency – because as the Greek
legends tell us, that leads to shipwreck
Overall, the value of yuan payments increased by 2.18 per cent from July, whilst in general all payments currencies decreased by
1.36 per cent.
That compares to the US dollar, which accounted for 39.69 per cent of transactions in August, the euro for 34.13 per cent and the
pound for 6.88 per cent.
The rapid escalation in the US-China trade friction appears to be spurring China to take stops to accelerate the internationalisation
process of the yuan, also known as the renminbi.
Last week Chinese President Xi Jinping also said the trade war was forcing China to rely more on itself for development, and that “it’s
not a bad thing”.
Is China an open economy? Beijing says it is but IMF differs
However Christine Lagarde, the IMF’s managing director, on Monday warned that countries should work together to resolve the
current trade disputes, and to build a global trade system that is stronger and fairer.
She said there were signs that global growth had plateaued, becoming less synchronised with fewer countries taking part in the
expansion.
“History shows that, while it is tempting to sail alone, countries must resist the siren call of self-sufficiency – because as the Greek
legends tell us, that leads to shipwreck,” Lagarde said.
Food Wars
 1NC
Dollar stability key to commodity prices—collapse causes massive volatility.
Chuck KOWALSKI 17. Two degrees in Finance and Economics from Florida State University.
“How the Dollar Impacts Commodity Prices.” The Balance. May 5.
https://www.thebalance.com/how-the-dollar-impacts-commodity-prices-809294.
Typically, there is an inverse relationship between the value of the dollar and commodity prices.
When the dollar strengthens against other major currencies, the prices of commodities tend to drop.
When the value of the dollar weakens against other major currencies, the prices of commodities generally
move higher. This is a general rule but it holds true more often than not over time.
If you look at a chart of the CRB index which contains a diverse group of commodity prices
against a chart of the dollar index which represents the strength or weakness of the U.S.
currency against other foreign exchange instruments, you will notice that, as a general rule, when
the dollar moves higher, commodities tend to move lower .
The converse occurs as the dollar moves lower. The correlation is not perfect, but over time there is a significant inverse
relationship.
There are many reasons why the value of the dollar influences commodities prices. The primary reason is that the dollar is the
benchmark pricing mechanism for most commodities because the U.S. currency is the reserve
currency of the world. The dollar tends to be the most stable foreign exchange instrument so
most other nations hold dollars as reserve assets . Therefore, when it comes to international trade
for raw materials, the dollar is the exchange mechanism in many, if not most cases. When the value of the
dollar drops, it costs more dollars to buy commodities. At the same time, it costs a lesser amount of other
currencies when the dollar in moving lower.
Another reason is that commodities are global assets, they trade all over the world. Foreign
buyers purchase U.S. commodities such as corn, soybeans, wheat, oil, and others with dollars.
When the value of the dollar drops, they will have more buying power as it takes less of their currencies to purchase a dollar. Classic
economics teaches that demand typically increases
as prices drop.
Commodity traders need to keep a close eye on the value of the dollar . One of the best ways to monitor
the dollar is to watch the price quotes of the Dollar Index traded on the ICE Futures Exchange.
This futures contract is an index that values the dollar against a group of other major currencies around the world like the euro, yen,
British pound, and other foreign exchange instruments. The price of the index is traded like any other futures contract and moves up
and down during trading hours.
Commodity prices don’t necessarily tick higher for every tick lower in the Dollar Index, but there is a strong inverse relationship over
the long-haul. Individual commodities have fundamental supply and demand characteristics so they move one way or another at
times despite the direction of the U.S. currency.
The dollar is the benchmark because it is stable
Commodity prices do not trade in a vacuum. Commodity production is often a localized affair. As an example,
the majority of corn and soybean production in the world comes from the fertile lands of the United States.
The mineral rich soil of Chile yields the largest output of copper on earth and half the world’s oil reserves are located in the Middle
East. The largest producers of cocoa beans are located in Africa in the Ivory Coast and Ghana. As you can see, commodity production
depends on climate and geology in specific locations. However,
consumption of these important raw
materials that are staples for all humans occurs all over the globe .
When it comes to the price of commodities, the vast majority of these raw materials use the dollar as
a pricing mechanism for global trade. That is because the U.S. is the strongest and most stable
economy in the world. Therefore, the dollar is the reserve currency of the world and the pricing mechanism
for commodities. When the dollar strengthens, it means that commodities become more expensive
in other non-dollar currencies. This tends to have a negative influence on demand. Conversely,
when the dollar weakens, commodity prices in other currencies move lower which increases
demand.
Each commodity has idiosyncratic characteristics. However, the value of the dollar has a direct influence on the
prices of all commodities . In May 2014, the dollar began to strengthen. During the month, the U.S. dollar index traded to
78.93 on the active month futures contract.

Food shortages cause violent conflict—best studies

Benjamin T. JONES ET AL. 17. **Assistant Professor, International Relations, Mississippi.
**Eleonora Mattiacci, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Amherst College. **Bear F.
Braumoeller, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Ohio State. “Food scarcity
and state vulnerability: Unpacking the link between climate variability and violent unrest.”
Journal of Peace Research 54(3): 335-50. Emory Libraries.
There is a long history of sudden increases in food insecurity contributing to, or directly
producing , violent protests and riots as individuals take to the streets in response to shortages, dating back at leas t
from the famous bread shortage that ignited the French Revolution (for a series of examples in different
contexts and periods, see also Brinkman & Hendrix, 2011: 7–8).7 Indeed, during a series of violent riots in Somalia in
2008 prompted by rising food prices, one participant summarized their motivation for taking to the streets
by saying: ‘I’ve never demonstrated before, but I’m not ashamed because if you can’t eat, you
will do whatever you can [ ... ]’.8 Thus, our theoretical focus is on the generation of food insecurity and how it
translates into violent unrest. As such, our primary theoretical interest is with food consumers.
Domestic production shortfalls and higher food prices translate into food insecurity in two ways .
First, food shortages decrease food availability, thus imperiling the basic ability of individuals
to survive . Second, food shortages highlight food entitlements , which Sen (1981: 459) defines as ‘the
ability of different sections of the populations to establish command over food using the entitlement relations in that society’. In
other words, an increase in food insecurity both challenges the ability of people to procure food
and emphasizes the existing differences in society between those that can and those that cannot do so.
When confronting a situation of food scarcity, individuals become more willing to participate in violent
demonstrations and riots, for several reasons. First, shocks to food security act as a source of
grievance by denying individuals access to basic necessities . Thus, scarcity can generate
competition and animosity between societal groups and between societal groups and the state over issues of food
availability. Second, these shocks can also increase existing grievances, by emphasizing food entitlements. In this
sense, abrupt increases in food insecurity will highlight existing inequalities and conflicts between
different societal groups (e.g. occupational and ethnic differences). Finally, the desperation that food insecurity
entails reduces the perceived costs associated with violence (see also Brinkman & Hendrix, 2011).
Participating in violent demonstrations, while costly, may be a preferable alternative to not
demonstrating and potentially being unable to feed oneself or family.
The effect of food insecurity is shaped by the degree to which each country is vulnerable to food insecurity. While these threats
exacerbate grievances and inflame existing social hierarchies by both reducing food availability and highlighting food entitlements,
as well as reducing the relative costs of participating in violent demonstrations, the vulnerability of the state to food insecurity plays
a crucial role in moderating food insecurity’s impact on the likelihood of violence. State vulnerability alters the calculations of
individuals contemplating participation in violent demonstrations. When
states are especially vulnerable, the
ramifications of abrupt increases in food insecurity are likely to be more widespread, and
grievances are more likely to trigger violence precisely because the state lacks the economic
and institutional resilience necessary to address the grievances of its population and deter
violence.
Threats to food security
Sudden increases in the threat of food insecurity – abrupt and dramatic reductions in the
ability of individuals to access food – are a multi-faceted outcome and may result from either
domestic or international processes . To understand when and why food insecurity triggers violence, it is essential to
theorize individually its different sources, which we consider in turn below.
International food prices can affect the threat of food insecurity in two ways. First, the
absolute level of international food prices impacts the price that local customers must pay for
food. Higher food prices increase the risk of food insecurity because, ceteris paribus, higher
prices make it more difficult for consumers to purchase food. Second, sudden increases in the
price of food might also heighten the threat of food insecurity, by dramatically and
unexpectedly reducing the ability of consumers to procure food, thus triggering shortages that
are difficult for consumers to anticipate and plan for.

Nuclear escalation.
FDI 12. A Research Institute providing strategic analysis of Australia’s global interests; citing
Lindsay Falvery, PhD in Agricultural Science and former Professor, University of Melbourne.
“Food and Water Insecurity: International Conflict Triggers & Potential Conflict Points.” May 25.
http://www.futuredirections.org.au/workshop-papers/537-international-conflict-triggers-and-
potential-conflict-points-resulting-from-food-and-water-insecurity.html.
There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought
over a lack of resources. ¶ Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and
Russian revolutions as conflicts induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War
Two efforts are said to have been inspired, at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to
more food. Yet the general sense among those that attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that the scale of the
problem in the future could be significantly greater as a result of population pressures, changing weather,
urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs , and increased affluence in the developing world.
In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDI’s March 2012 workshop on the issue of food and conflict,
clearly expresses the problem and why countries across the globe are starting to take note.
He writes (p.36), “…if people are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable – riots,
violence, breakdown of law and order and migration result.” ¶ “Hunger feeds anarchy.”
This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if “large regions of the
world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then wholesale, bloody wars are liable
to follow .”
He continues: “ A n increasingly credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of super
powers and their allies, as a festering, self-perpetuating chain of resource conflicts .” He also says: “The wars
of the 21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed
states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody competition over dwindling resources.”
As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources ,
either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves. ¶ Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is
over resources, not because people are going hungry.
A study by the I nternational P eace R esearch I nstitute indicates that where food security is an issue, it
is more likely to result in some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans
experienced such wars. Governments, especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this
phenomenon. The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US C enter for S trategic and I nternational S tudies
and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and
possibly even nuclear war .
 EX - Great Power Draw In
Great power draw-in—US strategic interests.
Cullen HENDRIX 16. Associate Professor, Josef Korbel School of International Studies. “When
Hunger Strikes: How Food Security Abroad Matters for National Security at Home.” The Chicago
Council on Global Affairs. April.
https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/Report_When_Hunger_Strikes_1604.pdf.
High food prices exacerbate food insecurity, leading to political instability Recent events demonstrate how high the stakes
remain. Following a 20-year period of relative stability in world food markets, extreme price volatility marked the 2000s, particularly the period
from 2007 to the present (see Figure 1, “Food prices and food-related protests, 1990–2015”). From 2007 to 2011, high food prices
swelled the ranks of the world’s food insecure , with women and children most acutely affected. Since then, the
number of food-insecure people has trended downward—thanks in large part to lower prices and
increased agriculture investment by governments, the private sector, and nonprofits. However, we can ill afford to
be complacent about prospects going forward, as food insecurity is expected to deepen in key regions if the
current trajectory holds.

The social and economic costs of these food price spikes were considerable , however the
political fallout—as well as the relationship between food and political stability it highlights—
was just as damaging. Food price–related protests, also in Figure 1, toppled governments in Haiti and
Madagascar in 2007–08.
[Begin Box 2] Hunger is not a necessary precondition for instability Countries
affected by food price–related riots are not just
those with poor governance or where hunger and food insecurity are prevalent. According to the
widely followed Fragile States Index, Egypt, Libya, and Syria were at less risk prior to the
2010–11 food price spike than countries like Colombia and Nigeria—and yet all three were
destabilized.8 That high food and fuel prices were the catalyst for destabilizing riots in
regimes thought to be relatively safe implies that our risk-assessment tools underestimated
the potential for food price–related instability . [End Box 2]
And in 2010–11, food prices and food insecurity were again implicated in the political turmoil

and mass uprisings of the Arab Spring. These movements did not all begin violently, but once protesters were
mobilized, heavy-handed government responses often led otherwise peaceful protests to
become violent and destabilizing .
In both periods, countries of high strategic significance to the United States were affected (see Figure
2, “Food riots 2007–11 and current oil exports”). The unrest in the Middle East and North Africa roiled energy
markets: more than 20 percent of world crude and petroleum exports pass through either the
Suez Canal or the Strait of Hormuz, and both were ringed by countries experiencing unrest .9¶
Though oil flows through those channels were not disrupted, unrest in Libya and concern that the Arab Spring would
spread to major Gulf oil exporters (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) pushed already high oil prices up by 15
percent in late February and early March 2011.10

The resulting instability strained Egyptian relations with Israel and necessitated a NATO
intervention in Libya. The ongoing civil war in Syria—which can be linked to drought, food
insecurity , rapid urbanization, and exclusionary rule (see Box 1, “Important terms”)—is exacting a massive
toll and contributing to growing tensions with Russia , dissention over refugee resettlement
among NATO partners in Europe, and the escalation of a serious threat to the Iraqi government. Closer to US
borders, soaring prices for staples like rice and beans in Haiti led to a week of rioting in 2008 during which five people were killed, with the violence
involving both Haitian police and UN Peacekeepers. Moreover, rising
food prices and deteriorating economic
prospects there fueled attempts to immigrate to the United States. As food prices shot up almost 20
percent in 2007, US Coast Guard interdictions of Haitians rose 34 percent, straining US Coast
Guard resources.11¶ Thus the food riots of 2007–11 offer very clear examples of how food
insecurity and grievances over high prices abroad affect US national security at home and
stress national security resources.
 EX - Famine Additional Impact
Famines kill millions.
UN 11. This report is prepared on a biennial basis by the Division for Social Policy and
Development. “The global food crises.” 2011 Report on the World Social Situation. 62-6.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/docs/2011/chapter4.pdf.
However, the rapid and simultaneous rise in prices globally for all basic food crops—corn, wheat,
soybeans and rice—long with other food items such as cooking oil has had a devastating effect on poor people

all over the world (ACF International / Action Against Hunger, 2009; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, 2009b; Swan, Hadley and Cichon, 2010). Almost everybody’s standard of living has been reduced as people in the middle
class become increasingly careful about their food purchases, the
near poor descend into poverty and those
already poor suffer even greater deprivations than before.
With the increase in hunger and malnutrition, the risk of premature deaths is likely to
increase among the young, old, infirm and other vulnerable people and this will continue unless
conditions improve. The survivors are harmed in other ways as well. The impact of the food crisis is likely
to be much more severe among women and children. Because of gender discrimination and
various cultural practices that influence intrahousehold resource allocation, these groups tend
to be more vulnerable to chronic and transitory food insecurity. Furthermore, the crisis may undermine
efforts to reduce maternal and infant deaths as the food and nutrition deficits facing pregnant and
lactating women worsen in already adversely affected regions . Lack of social protection for female workers in the
informal sector compounds their vulnerability to such external shocks.
In the majority of countries, the recent increases in food prices have significantly raised the number of
people suffering from hunger and living in poverty both in urban and rural areas irrespective of the
poverty line used (de Hoyos and Medvedev, 2009; Dessus, Herrera and Hoyos, 2008; Ivanic and Martin, 2008). The World
Bank estimates that the food crisis pushed 130 million to 155 million people into poverty in 2008, while the
poverty challenges posed by higher food prices have returned (World Bank, 2010c). Food prices in lowincome countries continue to
rise; by the end of May 2009, food prices in these countries rose 8 per cent faster than non-food prices, when compared with
January 2003 (see figure IV.1). Thus, the World Bank (2010d, p. 36) concluded that the poor in low-income countries “may not be
benefiting from lower international food prices … and … a significant portion of the 130 million [that were] pushed into extreme
poverty during the food-price spike … may not have exited poverty as might have been expected given the fall in international food
prices”.
A study of nine low-income countries also revealed that in the short term higher food prices
increased national poverty rates by 4.5 percentage points even though these effects differed substantially
across countries and by commodity (Ivanic and Martin, 2008). The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
estimated that the
food price crisis added 10 million people each to the ranks of the extremely
poor and the moderately poor. Another study of 19 Latin American countries found that
poverty had increased by 4.3 percentage points, or by 21 million additional poor people (Robles
and others, 2008).
In Asia, a 20 per cent increase in food prices probably increased the number of poor by 5.7
million and 14.7 million in the Philippines and Pakistan, respectively (Asian Development Bank, 2008).
Revenga, Wodon and Zaman (2008) found that in Africa the share of the population in poverty could have
jumped by as much as 4.4 percentage points with an increase in the price of cereals by 50 per cent. This negative
welfare effect, caused by a decline in purchasing power, particularly among urban consumers, was further exacerbated by
reductions in average household incomes as a result of the global financial and economic crisis. Tiwari and Zaman (2010) also
estimated that the slowdown in the global economy may have led to an increase of 41.3 million in the number of undernourished
people in 2009, that is 4.4 per cent more people than would have been the case if the global economic crisis had not occurred. This
is in addition to the estimated 923 million undernourished people in 2007 as estimated by FAO.
Higher food prices have forced households to spend more on food . In Mexico, the food price
shock caused the average poor household to effectively lose 18 per cent of its food budget
(Wood, Nelson and Nogueira, 2009). The result was that households with limited or no substitution options
have been pushed below their normal caloric or micronutrient intake, a situation that threatens their
long-term health and ability to escape poverty. A survey of food consumption patterns in the Central African
Republic, Ethiopia, Liberia and Sierra Leone found substantial evidence of restricted dietary diversity and reductions, of both the size
of food portions and the frequency of meals, among poor households which are increasing the risk of micronutrient deficiencies
among children as well as adults (Swan, Hadley and Cichon, 2010). Evenwhere households have been able to
maintain their levels of daily caloric intake, by substituting more expensive foods with
cheaper alternatives, this practice is causing micronutrient deficiencies where the substitutes
are less nutritious.
The global food price crisis has also induced reduced household spending on health care and
children’s education. In the capital and largest city in Sierra Leone, Freetown, children have been withdrawn from school
and forced into the labour market to contribute to family welfare (Swan, Hadley and Cichon, 2010). Similar coping mechanisms have
been adopted in other parts of the developing world as well.
Although much global attention has been focused on the impact of the food and the energy crises on developing countries, these
impacts also hit more developed countries (van der Ploeg, 2010). While starvation seldom occurs in
industrialized economies, declines in food expenditures by middle- and lowincome
households have forced families to eat less frequently and to consume less diverse and
nutrient-rich foods (Nord, 2009). Several developed countries saw spikes in chronic mild undernutrition among the poor and
other social groups, primarily due to job losses due to the global financial and economic crisis. People who are out of work, have
exhausted their savings, or are nearing the end of their unemployment benefits increasingly find themselves having to rely on local
food banks and other not-for-profit charitable organizations. For many of the “new poor”, this is the first time they have had to rely
on public assistance programmes for food and other benefits. In the United States, the number of people living in food-insecure
households jumped from 36.2 million in 2007 to 49.1 million in 2008 (Nord, 2009).
Econ Collapse
 1NC
US dollar collapse causes Russian fiscal independence and massive inflation –
that leads to economic collapse
Henderson ’14 (Andrew Henderson is a financial consultant for offshoring for the Nomad
Capitlist. He’s written for Money, Bloomberg, BBC, The Washington Post, Yahoo, Marketwatch,
Elite, Huffpost, Unilad, Zero Hedge, The blaze, and the IBT.
https://nomadcapitalist.com/2014/04/13/top-5-us-dollar-collapse-predictions/) //A.F.
The US dollar is in bad shape. Having lost 97% of its purchasing power in one hundred years, it’s
easy to argue that the dollar has suffered a slow but steady collapse. And many financial experts claim this is only

the beginning . In an era when central banks are printing money to infinity and racking up debts like never before, something
has to give. For those in the know, the question isn’t if the dollar will collapse… but rather, when. As the United States
plays a less and less significant role in the world economy and countries like Russia and China
threaten to replace the dollar as the global reserve currency , here are five of the most chilling predictions
about the future of the dollar. 5. Harvard economist starts a “bank run” over dollar collapse fears Classical economist and Harvard
professor Terry Burnham told the world that he was withdrawing $1 million from his Bank of America checking account because of
the negative consequences Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen have had on the US dollar, and is trying to start a bank run by getting
others to do the same. He claimed a dollar collapse is also underway because the Fed’s manipulations had two adverse effects on
the currency: decreasing overall wealth by distorting markets, and redistributing wealth from unsophisticated investors to the
political elite through the currency. Burnham said he couldn’t stand getting paid zero interest by Bank of America anymore, and
didn’t trust them to keep his money safe. At zero interest, he was losing tens of thousands of dollars in purchasing power every year
due to inflation, while his well-connected bank benefitted. 4. The US dollar
collapse will be worse than the
situation in Spain or Greece Billionaire Donald Trump says the dollar is on the edge of economic ruin, and an economic
collapse is the only remedy. He painted an ugly picture of the US economy during an appearance on Fox News. In fact, he issued a
warning to Americans to prepare for “financial ruin”. Trump claims the United States is no longer a rich country because rich
countries don’t borrow money. In the interview, Trump claimed that the US is becoming a third world nation forced to borrow
money and issue debt. Trump also suggested an answer to the question “When will the us dollar collapse?”, saying that when US
debt hits the $21 to $22 trillion mark, things will get much, much worse. 3. Even the US government will stop using the dollar Jeff
Berwick, editor of The Dollar Vigilante, predicts that things will get so bad that even the American government will view
their own dollar as toxic waste . He says the average American is in “la la land” obsessing over TV shows or the next
Presidential race. He says what just happened in Ukraine could easily happen in the United States. And while Ukraine saw their
currency crisis coming for some time, the US dollar collapse could happen overnight, he says. Berwick says the US is “turning a
corner” and headed for total financial ruin as early as “this year”, and quotes Jim Rogers who says “there is no paper money in 2014
and 2015 that’s going to be worth much of anything.” Berwick often predicts the “end of the monetary system as we know it” and
claims that, once all of the capital controls have been implemented and the US government starts confiscating assets to pay
creditors like China, it will not even accept the tainted US dollar. 2. Federal
Reserve insolvency will cause a 90%
drop in the dollar Financial expert and author of Currency Wars Jim Rickards believes the “international monetary system is
headed for a collapse.” Rickards sets the record straight on what an “economic collapse” is, saying it doesn’t mean we all go live in
caves. In fact, he says, we’ve seen three economic collapses in the last one hundred years. In his new book, Rickards suggests the
dollar will see the worst of the next economic collapse as part of the “death of money”, lamenting that “we are on a global dollar
standard”. He says a fiat currency standard can work, but only if countries inject confidence into
the system and welcome business with open arms . Of course, neither of those factors exist in the United
States. Among Rickards’ chief reasons for predicting a dollar collapse: quantative easing, a “lousy business environment”, high taxes,
and low growth. He says that dollar-euro swaps from the Fed will make the next collapse much bigger than the last one. 1. Russia
will ban the US dollar Russian legislator Mikhail Degtyarev has likened the US dollar to a “ worldwide
Ponzi scheme“… one he has claimed will end with the collapse of the dollar in 2017. He
submitted a bill to protect Russians against the “collapsing US debt pyramid” , saying growing rates of
US debt would cause a US dollar collapse if spending isn’t remedied. Degtyarev’s bill would ban US dollars from
circulating in Russia and forbid private citizens from holding Russian bank accounts in US dollars. Those with dollar-
denominated accounts would have to convert their accounts to other foreign currencies (his bill would not ban the euro, pound,
yen, or renmibi). However, Degtyarev has proposed some wacky bills before, such as offering “menstruation leave” for women in
the workplace.

Economic decline causes protectionism and war – their defense doesn’t assume
accompanying shifts in global power.
Royal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of
Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,”
in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and
Brauer, p. 213-215
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political
science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense
behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable
contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle
theory, finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-
eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such
as economic crisis could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to
uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995).
Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power
may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined
with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that
the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic
level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that ‘future expectation of trade’
is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of
states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so
long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations , However, if the expectations of future
trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict
increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crisis could potentially be the trigger
for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent
states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed
conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal
conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages
between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal
conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international
and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with an increase in
the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external
tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ‘Diversionary
theory’ suggests
that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have
increase incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a ‘rally around the flag’
effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic
decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest
that thetendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic
states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of
domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States,
and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic
scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political
science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection
between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more
attention.
 EX - I/Ls - Gen Econ
Dollar collapse leads to hyperinflation that decreases the value of the dollar by
up to 100 trillion times – that collapses the global economy
Merritt '14 ( Cam merritt is a reporter for Sapling, and investing firm dedicated to reducing the
impacts of debt on US society. https://www.sapling.com/8257496/happens-debt-dollar-
collapses)
A collapse of the dollar would not be a good thing for the U.S. economy, or the world's , but there
might be a bit of a silver lining for people who owe money. Debt wouldn't be eliminated by a dollar collapse, but repaying it would
get easier. That's because when a dollar loses nearly all its value, then $100 or $1,000 or $100,000 isn't worth much either. When
economists talk about a currency such as the dollar "collapsing," they're referring to a sudden, steep decline in the
value of that currency, to the point where it's worth only a tiny fraction of its previous value .
For people using the currency, the collapse manifests itself in hyperinflation -- extreme price increases.
Whereas today an apple might cost $1, next week it might cost $10, and the week after that,
$20. It's not that the apple has gotten more valuable; it's that the dollar got less valuable. Today, $1 pays for a whole apple; next
week, maybe a couple bites' worth. Currency collapses have produced astounding images of people using stacks of money for the
smallest purchases and of governments printing banknotes in ridiculously high denominations, such as the 100-trillion-
dollar bill that Zimbabwe printed in the 2000s (and which, according to "The Wall Street Journal," still
wouldn't even pay for local bus fare). During a currency collapse, hyperinflation locks an economy into a "wage-price
spiral," in which higher prices force employers to pay higher wages, which they pass on to customers as higher prices, and the cycle
continues. Meanwhile, the government cranks out currency to meet demand, making inflation even worse. This spiral can make it
impossible for anyone to keep up with inflation, but it does have one benefit for debtors -- it makes it easier to pay off debt. Imagine
you had a mortgage with $100,000 left on it, and your income was $50,000 a year. Now the dollar collapses, hyperinflation results
and the wage-price spiral pushes your income to, say, $1 million a year. (This represents roughly 2,000 percent inflation, relatively
modest as far as currency collapses go; in Zimbabwe, the annual inflation rate in 2008 was 231 million percent.) But your mortgage is
still $100,000, because hyperinflation doesn't change debt balances. Before the collapse, it would have taken two years' worth of
wages to pay off your mortgage; now it takes less than a month. In general, inflation is good for debtors, since it reduces the real
value of what they owe, and bad for savers, since it reduces the real value of their savings. The hyperinflation from a collapse of the
dollar would intensify these effects. If the dollar collapses and runaway inflation results, it may get easier to pay off existing debt, but
it's also going to be extremely difficult, and costly, to engage in any new borrowing. Inflation benefits borrowers at the expense of
lenders. In times of high inflation, lenders charge high interest rates to try to stay ahead of the dwindling value of the money they've
lent out. Amid hyperinflation, if they're willing to make loans at all, lenders would be expected to set astronomical interest rates.
And they might not be willing in any case. Amid
hyperinflation, money can lose value so fast that the only
rational thing to do is to spend it -- to turn it into something of value -- rather than lend it.

Loss of dollar heg results in econ collapse

China Daily 4/8/19. "Saudi Threat To End Petrodollar Would Spell Trouble For US."
global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201904/08/WS5caa8db8a3104842260b4c57.htmlZ
Saudi Arabia has reportedly threatened to sell its oil in currencies other than the
Editor's note:
US dollar if Washington passes a bill that exposes OPEC member states to US antitrust lawsuits. Columnist Niutanqin comments
in his WeChat post: Saudi Arabia's threat to delink its oil trading from the US dollar, if
implemented, would be a severe test for the United State's economy and the world's
financial and economic system. For economic reasons, the US has long had close relations with Saudi Arabia, but it is
also economic factors this time that have driven a wedge between the two allies. The No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act
(NOPEC) the US administration is pushing for is designed to remove the state immunity shield and to allow OPEC and its national oil
companies to be sued under US antitrust law for anti-competitive attempts to limit the world's oil supply. The bill, if passed, would
have direct repercussions for Saudi Arabia, which is the leading member of the oil organization. Despite the chances of the US bill
coming into force being slim, the fact Riyadh is considering such a drastic step is a sign of the
kingdom's annoyance about potential US legal challenges to OPEC. It is to some extent out of the same
concerns that Qatar, another important member of oil cartel, announced its exit from the organization in December. If Riyadh
does bid farewell to the US dollar in its oil trade, it would undermine the dollar's status as
the world's main reserve currency, reduce Washington's clout in global trade and weaken
its ability to enforce sanctions on other countries. The US hegemony has long been built
on the petrodollar, given that global oil production accounts for 2 to 3 percent of global GDP and most oil transactions in the
world, including derivatives, are denominated in the US dollar. It is with the dollar hegemony that the US has the means to impose
sanctions on other countries even if they have no direct links with it.
If the Saudi threat was to materialize, the
world's financial and economic order could be completely rewritten, as once Saudi Arabia
carried out the threat, other oil exporters who also suffer from the US bill will surely
follow suit, which will put an end to the petrodollar.

Saudi retal causes an oil crash which results in econ collapse

Slav 4/15/19 Irina Salv is a riter for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing on oil and gas industry.
"Saudi Arabia Threatens To Drop Dollar For Oil Trades." https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Arabia-
Threatens-To-Drop-Dollar-For-Oil-Trades.html
Saudi Arabia has threatened the United States to stop using dollars for its oil trades in an
attempt to discourage legislators from passing a bill dubbed NOPEC aimed at holding OPEC liable for cartel practices under U.S. law.
Reuters reports, citing unnamed sources, that the switch from U.S. dollars to other currencies had been discussed in senior Saudi
circles and that it had also been shared with U.S. government officials from the energy department. The reported threat takes OPEC’s
—Saudi Arabia’s—offensive against the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act a step further after last month UAE oil minister,
Suhail al-Mazrouei, reportedly told lenders at the meeting that if the bill was made into law that made OPEC members liable to U.S.
anti-cartel legislation, the group, which is to all intents and purposes indeed a cartel, would break up and every member would boost
production to its maximum.
This would be a repeat of what happened in 2013 and 2014, and
ultimately led to another oil price crash like the one that saw Brent crude and WTI sink
below US$30 a barrel. As a result, a lot of U.S. shale-focused, debt-dependent producers would go under. Now, one of the
Reuters sources said, “The Saudis say: let the Americans pass NOPEC and it would be the U.S. economy that would fall apart.”
Other countries are already
Another source commented “The Saudis know they have the dollar as the nuclear option.”
using other currencies in oil trades, notably Russia and Iran, but also China, for some of its trades. China even
launched a yuan-denominated oil contract last year, which initially sparked concern. Later, this subsided as the hype died out and the
contract failed to remove dollar-denominated European, Middle Eastern, and U.S. contracts from the market. Still ,
if an oil
seller as big as Saudi Arabia were to drop the dollar as its default trade currency, this
would have strong reverberations for the greenback’s status as the world’s dominant
currency and it might also spur similar moves by other oil exporters who are likely to feel threatened by the NOPEC bill.

Dollar collapse causes economic destruction

Amadeo 7/5/19 Kimberly Amadeo has 20 years senior-level corporate experience in economic analysis and business strategy.
She received an M.S. in Management from the Sloan School of Business at M.I.T.Kimberly is the U.S. Economy expert for The
Balance, and has been writing for Dotdash/About.com since 2006. She covers economic and business news, and explains how the
economy affects you. " When Will The US Dollar Collapse?" https://www.thebalance.com/when-will-the-u-s-dollar-collapse-3305691
A dollar collapse is when the value of the U.S. dollar plummets. Anyone who holds dollar-denominated assets will sell them at any
cost. That includes foreign governments who own U.S. Treasurys. It also affects foreign exchange futures traders. Last but not least
are individual investors. When the crash occurs, these parties will demand assets denominated in anything other than dollars. The
collapse of the dollar means that everyone is trying to sell their dollar-denominated assets, and no one wants to buy them. This will
A collapse couldn't
drive the value of the dollar down to near zero. It makes hyperinflation look like a day in the park.
occur without a triggering event that destroys confidence in the dollar. Altogether, foreign
countries own more than $6 trillion in U.S. debt. The two largest are China and Japan. If they dump their
holdings of Treasury notes, they could cause a panic leading to collapse. China owns $1 trillion in U.S. Treasurys. That's because
China pegs the yuan to the dollar. This keeps the prices of its exports to the United States relatively cheap. Japan also owns more
than $1 trillion in Treasurys. It also wants to keep the yen low to stimulate exports to the United States. Japan is moving out of a 15-
year deflationary cycle. The 2011 earthquake and nuclear disaster didn't help. A dollar collapse would create
global economic turmoil. To respond to this kind of uncertainty, you must be mobile. Keep your assets liquid, so you can
shift them as needed. Make sure your job skills are transferable. Update your passport, in case things get so bad for so long that you
need to move quickly to another country. These are just a few ways to protect yourself and survive a dollar collapse.
Decline of US dollar would cause second Great Depression
Nwogu 3/28/19 Meziechi Nwogu is a reporter analyzes geopolitics, the global economy, and the military fairs that impacts the
world. "The Coming Collapse Of The U.S. Economic System - Blame the U.S. Dollar" https://medium.com/@meziechinwogu1/the-
coming-collapse-of-the-u-s-economic-system-blame-the-u-s-dollar-b4c4238741a4
The petrodollar helped lift the U.S. Dollar to the world’s leading currency. Every country that
wishes to import crude oil needs the U.S. Dollars to purchase the commodity. This means that foreign countries have to hold large
amounts of U.S dollars. However, they have been recent challenges to the Petrodollar system. With the decline in purchasing power of
the U.S. Dollar, China, in March 2018, launched Yuan-denominated crude oil futures denominated in CNY (Petro-Yuan) for oil
marketing for the Far East. As the world’s biggest importer of crude oil, Beijing has long felt that pricing all its millions of barrels of
imports should be priced in Yuan. As the world’s largest importer of crude oil, China saw it as a reasonable change to price the world’s
most vital commodity. Modern economies are built mostly on faith. People have confidence in the U.S. Dollar because the U.S.
economy is the biggest and most significant economy in the world. Also, the U.S. economy frequently outperforms the economies of
Europe and Japan. The US dollar is backed up by the output of American workers. When people do lose faith in the
U.S Dollar, its value will plunge, the stock market will crash, and the U.S economy will
collapse. The U.S. National Debt is over $22 Trillion. However, the total the US total debt (debt owed by state & local
governments, Household, businesses, financial institution, and the Federal Government) is a staggering $74 Trillion. The point I’m
making is that this charade cannot continue much longer. China, the European Union, India, Brazil, Russia, and other major economies
are very aware of this coming crisis. It’s hard to imagine the U.S Dollar being replaced by another currency as the world’s economic
standard, but it could very well happen. It is possible to wake up one morning and see the U.S dollar slide into a death spiral, stocks in
If the U.S. Dollar and the economy collapses, the result will be the
a free fall, and hyperinflation.
most significant stock market crash ever in the New York Stock Exchange, probably
1000–2000 points in the first day. Thus, the major stock exchange in London, Frankfurt, Tokyo, and Hong Kong will
have to suspend trading. Of course, this suspension will significantly increase the panic among the general population. Once
people all over the world realize that they are a significant stock market crash happening,
there will be a run on banks similar to the 1930s. In response, major financial institutions will put a freeze on
most or all banking transactions, including credit card transactions. This will significantly increase panic. Due to the bank freeze,
employers will be unable to make bank transactions to pay their employees. With employers unable to access frozen bank accounts,
people won’t be paid, bills won’t get paid, etc. Consequently,
most businesses will be forced to either go out
of business or significantly reduce their workforce; unemployment will become rampant.
With millions out of a job, the number of unemployment claims will skyrocket,
bankrupting unemployment insurance programs in the major countries.
 Impact - Generic
Laundry list of impacts to econ decline
Amadeo 19 ( March 23, Kimberly Amadeo has 20 years senior-level corporate experience in
economic analysis and business strategy. She received an M.S. in Management from the Sloan
School of Business at M.I.T.Kimberly is the U.S. Economy expert for The Balance, and has been
writing for Dotdash/About.com since 2006. She covers economic and business news, and
explains how the economy affects you.https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-economy-collapse-
what-will-happen-how-to-prepare-3305690
What Would Happen in an Economic Collapse
If the economy collapses, you would lose access to credit. Banks would close. Demand would outstrip supply of
food, gas, and other necessities. If the collapse affected local governments and utilities, then water and electricity would no
longer be available. As people panic, they would revert to survival and self-defense modes. The economy would return to a
traditional economy, where those who grow food barter for other services.
A U.S. economic collapse would create global panic. Demand for the dollar and U.S. Treasurys would plummet. Interest rates would
skyrocket. Investors would rush to other currencies, such as the yuan, euro, or even gold. It would create not just inflation, but
hyperinflation, as the dollar became dirt cheap.
How Close Are We to a Total Economic Collapse?
Any of the following seven scenarios could create an economic collapse.
If the U.S. dollar rapidly loses value, it would create hyperinflation.
A bank run could force banks to close or even go out of business, cutting off lending and even cash withdrawals.
The internet could become paralyzed with a super-virus, preventing emails and online transactions.
Terrorist attacks or a massive oil embargo could halt interstate trucking. Grocery stores would soon run out of food.
Widespread violence erupts across the nation. That could range from inner-city riots, a civil war,
or a foreign military attack. It's possible that a combination of these events could overwhelm the
government's ability to prevent or respond to a collapse.
 Impact - U.S. Lashout
The US will attempt to launch military forces in a last attempt to control the
world
Lulko 18 ( July 27 Lyuba Lulko”Three conditions to force the US dollar system to collapse”
http://www.pravdareport.com/business/141298-us_dollar/)
There is a reverse side to it too. The debt-to-GDP ratio currently stands at over one hundred percent, and calculations show that it
will grow. This factor will undermine confidence in the dollar.
Secondly, one needs to have a viable monetary alternative for buyers and investors. If we get rid of the dollar, what are
we going to buy instead? How are we going to trade? One may suggest the yuan and the euro, but the yuan is a
regulated currency, and the euro is a regional one. It does not look like China wants to switch from commodities to capital trade to
make the yuan a convertible and strong currency.
Thirdly, someone
needs to push the dollar to make it collapse . Debt holder nations could, as it seems,
massively dispose of US bonds. It's only about five trillion dollars: if China and Japan started disposing their
treasury stock on the secondary market, this would cause great panic. Yet, the yuan fluctuates within a corridor. China artificially
lowers its rate to quietly enter the US market. In addition, US bonds bring China a stable income in dollars, which the country needs
to meet importers' demand.
Japan is now trying to exit the 15-year deflation cycle after the 2011 earthquake and Fukushima nuclear disaster. If the dollar
becomes weak, then the goods valued in yuan and yen will cost relatively more in the United States. They will become less
competitive.
The countries that lend to the US may start selling US bonds either for political reasons or if they see their stocks dropping in price
too quickly and they have another export market to replace the American one.
Thus, the collapse of the dollar, and therefore of the American system of living in debt is unlikely to happen. If it happens, the
world will experience a global economic shock. Gold, the euro, energy carriers and other goods will become more
expensive. The debt service will grow, US import prices will rise sharply, hyperinflation will follow,
and exports will not yield any revenue. Inflation, high interest rates and volatility will suppress the growth
of the real sector. The United States, perhaps, will launch military redivision of the world, since
every war brings profit and economic recovery.

The US would cause there to be military backlash

Guzman 18' ( Timothy , September 16, 2018 imothy Alexander Guzman is an independent
researcher and writer with a focus on political, economic, media and historical spheres. He has
been published in Global Research, The Progressive Mind, European Union Examiner, News
Beacon Ireland, WhatReallyHappened.com, EIN News and a number of other alternative news
sites. He is a graduate of Hunter College in New York City. "The Currency War Wil Escalate as
China's 'petro-yuan' challenges the U.S. Military-backed 'petro-
dollar'https://www.globalresearch.ca/a-currency-war-will-escalate-as-chinas-petro-yuan-is-set-
to-challenge-the-u-s-military-backed-petro-dollar/5616456
As the U.S. dollar continues to lose its status as the world’s premiere reserve currency, the reality of a world war seems
inevitable, especially when major countries such as China, Russia and Iran are making strategic moves
to bypass the U.S. dollar in favor of other currencies such as China’s ‘Petro-Yuan’. China has made the decision to price oil in their own
currency the “Yuan” by a new gold-backed futures contract which will change the dynamics of the world’s economy. China is preparing to
launch the petro-Yuan later this year that will eventually threaten the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
At the end of World War II, the international economic system was in shambles, so a plan was devised to create a new economic system. By July 1944,
more than 730 delegates arrived at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference in Bretton Woods, New Hamphire and signed on to the
historic Bretton Woods agreements which was a plan to set up a system of rules, regulations that eventually led to the creation of the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF’s main purpose was to prevent any temporary
imbalances of payments. The framework of the Bretton Woods agreements was to control the value of money between various countries. Each country
had to have an established monetary policy that kept the exchange rate of its own currency within a fixed value in terms of gold. By 1971, the U.S.
terminated the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold (at the time, the fixed rate of gold was at $35 an ounce) ending the Bretton Woods system
allowing the U.S. dollar to become a fiat currency which has allowed central banks (especially the Federal Reserve bank) to “print money out of thin
air.”
China’s move will have consequences. For starters, it will certainly undermine Washington’s ability to
impose economic sanctions on any nation at will and at the same time, will slowly diminish the purchasing power
for U.S. consumers as imports become more expensive.
China (the largest holder of U.S. debt) is the largest importer of oil, while Russia, one of the largest exporters of oil in the world have agreed to use the
petro-Yuan to bypass the petro-dollar. The petro-Yuan threatens the U.S. dollar’s hegemony around the globe as several
nations have recently demonstrated as they all share an interest in joining the transition from the U.S. dollar to the Yuan for oil transactions including
Washington’s arch enemies Iran, Venezuela and even Indonesia (currently not on Washington’s hit list).
The mainstream-media has been reporting on the latest developments concerning China’s plan to bypass the dollar and introduce the petro-Yuan to
the international community in an article by CNBC titled ‘China has grand ambitions to dethrone the dollar. It may make a powerful move this year’:
China is looking to make a major move against the dollar’s global dominance, and it may come as early as this year. The new strategy is to enlist the
energy markets’ help: Beijing may introduce a new way to price oil in coming months — but unlike the contracts based on the U.S. dollar that currently
dominate global markets, this benchmark would use China’s own currency. If there’s widespread adoption, as the Chinese hope, then that will mark a
step toward challenging the greenback’s status as the world’s most powerful currency.
China is the world’s top oil importer, and so Beijing sees it as only logical that its own currency should price the global economy’s most important
commodity. But beyond that, moving away from the dollar is a strategic priority for countries like China and Russia. Both aim to ultimately reduce their
dependency on the greenback, limiting their exposure to U.S. currency risk and the politics of American sanctions regimes
Washington is on a collision course for another war with North Korea with U.S. President Donald Trump leading the charge. With the power of the U.S.
dollar on life support, the U.S. empire of debt continues to use the threat of war and in some cases, wage
actual wars around the world namely Iran, Syria and Venezuela which have been on Washington’s hit list for some time. Iran and Russia are
already slowly transitioning away from the U.S. dollar to avoid any future economic sanctions imposed by Washington. Venezuela is also ready and
willing to make its move against the U.S. dollar. Reuters did report on the decision made by the Maduro government to implement a new system of
international payments for its oil exports. The report headlined with ‘Venezuela’s Maduro says will shun U.S. dollar in favor of yuan, others’ quoted
what Maduro had said during a session of the National Constituent Assembly at Palacio Federal Legislativo in Caracas, Venezuela:
“Venezuela is going to implement a new system of international payments and will create a basket of currencies to free us from the dollar,” Maduro
said in an hours-long address to a new legislative superbody, without providing details of the new mechanism. “If they pursue us with the dollar, we’ll
use the Russian ruble, the yuan, yen, the Indian rupee, the euro,” Maduro said
Another recent article published by CNBC ‘China will ‘compel’ Saudi Arabia to trade oil in Yuan — and that’s going to affect the US dollar’ interviewed
Carl Weinberg a chief economist and a managing director at High Frequency Economics about how the US dollar will lose its global dominance in the
near future once Saudi Arabia will be forced to use the petro-Yuan since China is the world’s top importer of oil:
Carl Weinberg, chief economist and managing director, said Beijing stands to become the most dominant global player in oil demand since China
usurped the U.S. as the “biggest oil importer on the planet.”
Saudi Arabia has “to pay attention to this because even as much as one or two years from now, Chinese demand will dwarf U.S. demand,” Weinberg
said. “I believe that yuan pricing of oil is coming and as soon as the Saudis move to accept it — as the Chinese will compel them to do — then the rest of
the oil market will move along with them”
The U.S. dollar is slowly losing its’ status as the world’s reserve currency, so is a war with China a possibility? Would
the U.S. attack North Korea as a stern warning to China or would it bring China into the conflict in an attempt to save
the U.S. dollar? Saddam Hussein wanted to trade in Euro’s instead of the U.S. dollar for Iraq’s oil exports and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi wanted
the Gold Dinar to dethrone the U.S. dollar in the continent of Africa. The decisions made by both Iraq and Libya had consequences that led to their
destruction by U.S. and NATO forces. Can the U.S. do the same to China? I highly doubt it since China has a formidable military that can defend itself
against any U.S. attack. China is certainly not Iraq nor Libya. So will there be a war against China in the long term? With the U.S. steadily
collapsing at a slow pace, Washington would do anything to survive . The U.S. dollar supports the Military-Industrial
Complex and its destructive and very expensive adventures around the world.
 AT No Diversionary War
Robust statistical proof supports diversionary war.
Patrick HOWELL 13. Graduate Student, International Affairs, University of Georgia; BA,
International Studies, Emory. “Economic Crises and the Initiation of Militarized Disputes.”
Thesis. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/howell_patrick_d_201305_ma.pdf.
The findings are clear: economic crises are an important trigger for shifts in a state’s rate of
dispute initiation. By using a large sample of states over a period of 185 years, this conclusion
then can also be taken as generalizable to the entire population of states in the international
system. In addition to providing support for issue crossover and the influence economic troubles can play on foreign policy decisions, the
findings here also support the methodological rationale for using economic crises as explicit,
observable events, instead of as trends in other variables (e.g. GDP growth). Of course, this is not to say that all work
on this topic is final. There exist a number of areas where this research agenda can be improved upon and/or extended to in order to provide a more
holistic account of where and how economic crises exactly apply political pressure on leaders.

First, the study of diversionary war exists in both quantitative tests and in more fine-toothed
examinations of actual cases (Levy and Vakili 1992; Fravel 2010). Exploring the internal processes within states in such a fashion can
also produce a deeper understanding of the exact causal mechanisms through which prospect theory operates. Aggregation and levels of analysis
become a basic concern with applying prospect theory outside of the laboratory and to states and governments. After all, “prospect theory is
developed as a theory of individual decision making, the question is whether it is applicable to collective decision making” (Vis 2011, 337). Here a
unitary actor assumption is made from the outset, but it is also possible that the
observed effect is driven instead by
individual decision-makers themselves (for example, Fuhrmann and Early 2008, who keep the level of analysis only on President
Bush). A deeper case study of a few select cases with an eye towards process might reveal whether the increase in conflict initiation is due to a single
policy entrepreneur or leader, or if it is the result of collective behavior (as perhaps even aides, legislators, and bureaucrats seek to compensate for the
detrimental effects that accompany an economic crisis separately or in concert).
Examination of specific cases might also provide a more accurate picture for policymakers of the strategy that can accompany an economic crisis and
inducement of diversionary tendencies in another state. Smith (Smith 1998) hypothesizes diversionary actions as a strategic game, and finds
that potential target states should then adopt a policy of strategic avoidance – disengaging from any scenario that might make them a
target from a diversionary conflict initiated by an opposing state in dire straits. This question of strategic avoidance occurs most often in
the
study of the U nited S tates (Fordham 2005; Meernik 2005), with evidence that other states avoid and/or initiate fewer disputes with the
United States when the American economy is performing poorly. The empirical test here using a proportionbased dependent variable might already be
capturing some degree of a strategic avoidance effect, in that some of the variation in the proportion of initiation could be because the rate of other
states initiating disputes on the crisis-stricken state is decreasing. If
strategic avoidance is occurring, it actually
increases the strength of aspects of the diversionary war literature (in that other states are
actually behaving according to expectations of diversionary actions ), but much more work and nuance would
be needed to separate where then the logic in strategic avoiders is originating.
The final implication of the findings to be discussed here is the role of institutions in this analysis. As
stated above, the institutional controls that were included in the estimation demonstrated null

effects on the overall rate of militarized dispute initiation. This finding is interesting considering the enshrined role
that institutions and regime types tend to play within scholarly work on diversionary war. Similar to the mixed results of GDP indicators, mixed and
contradictory results can be found throughout the body of work on diversionary war: some
find that the diversionary effects
exist mainly in democratic settings (Gelpi 1997; Davies 2002; Brul´e and Williams 2009), while others find that
diversionary effects occur in autocratic settings (Miller 1999; Lai and Slater 2005; Pickering and Kisangani 2010).
One method of reconciling the conflicting conclusions of whether democratic or autocratic
leaders are more likely to engage in diversionary behavior is in direct tests comparing the two
regime types. Typically, these comparisons have either found the two regime types differ in the targets that are selected by each (Bueno De
Mesquita and Siverson 1995), or have found some fault with the way that the regime types themselves are defined, due to differing incentives for
differing subtypes of regimes (Pickering and Kisangani 2005). In order to examine the difference between democracies and autocracies, I split the
sample from Model 2 into either of the regime types, using a score of 6 in the Polity2 measure as a cut-point. Splitting the sample has
the effect of interacting regime type with all independent variables, giving regime specific
effects not only for economic crises, but also all control variables .1
The results of this regime split can be found in Table 2. As can be seen here, the effect of economic crises is positive and

significant in both institutional settings. Comparing the coefficients for economic crisis in Table 2 with those of the original
Model 2, the likely explanation for why the institutional variables in the original model did not have an impact on crisis initiation is because all

democracies and autocracies possess relatively similar incentives for increasing crisis initiation
following economic crises, so any variation across institutions was only averaged out. However, the
results presented in Table 2 also provide support for a difference existing in the process of how diversionary conflict might occur in either regime type,
due to the differences in control variable significance. This lends some credence to the separation of democracies and autocracies for study of

diversionary war, but provides no evidence that the effect should only exist in one or the other. The similarity in the main
independent variable of economic crises, though, furthers the assertion that the effect of
economic crises increasing dispute initiation can be viewed as a general behavior of all states
in the international system.
Conclusions
Altogether, there can be said to be a robust , positive relationship between the occurrence of

economic crises and the rate of dispute initiation by states . This effect is especially strong and
demonstrable when time ordering is preserved by examining how crises in the previous year
affect states in their current year. These findings can also be said to have a relatively high degree of substantive import as well. As
Figure 1 showed, the occurrence of each subsequent economic crisis increases the chances of a state initiating disputes by almost 3%. The nearly

20 percentage point increase in dispute initiation across the range of the lagged economic
crisis variable also represents a substantial impact , especially considering the rare event
nature of militarized disputes to begin with.
This generalizable finding can have far-reaching impact to both the study of diversionary war in academia, as well as directly for policymakers. In
academe settings, there
is good evidence to support the use of acute economic crises over those
variables based on the slowershifting trends of GDP or public opinion measurements.
Economic crises act as an explicit trigger that can mark a leader’s shift into a losses frame
and engage in riskier behavior consistent with both prospect theory and diversionary war
hypotheses. Meanwhile, applying this observed effect to the real world would seem to indicate that if a state goes through an economic crisis,
other states should have increased wariness in their dealings with the crisis-stricken state and/or be more prepared for the possibility of a new dispute
emerging in the wake of such an event.

Defense doesn’t apply to the American context.

James L. RAY ET AL. 16. **Professor Emeritus, Political Science, Vanderbilt. **Becca McBride,
Assistant Professor, Political Science, Calvin College. **Matthew DiLorenzo, PhD in Political
Science, Vanderbilt. “Presidential political ambition and US foreign conflict behavior, 1816–
2010.” Conflict Management and Peace Science September: 1-20. Emory Libraries.
Conclusion
The finding here of most general significance is that US presidents that are term limited, or lacking in political ambition, by law, by
tradition, or by their own political commitments, have not in general been more likely to initiate militarized interstate disputes in the
years from 1816 to 2010. Instead, our results suggest that it
is US presidents who could aspire to re-election
who are more likely to initiate international conflicts . This finding is consistent with
expectations that the US’s unique position in the international system makes American
presidents well positioned to employ diversionary tactics in the pursuit of winning
reelection.
To be clear, our analysis of the American case does not necessarily create doubts about the internal validity of multi-country
research. Consistent with previous research, we find no evidence of a relationship between the political ambition of its presidents
and the likelihood that the US will be a target in a MID. Our results, however, do suggest a specific limit on the
external validity of the findings from multi-country studies . Even when we subset the
dataset used by Zeigler et al. (2014) to include only dyads where the US is the sending state, we find
results inconsistent with broader patterns. Given the greater precision and coverage of our
data relative to existing studies, and the theoretical reasons to expect that the US is
different , we are confident that we have identified a clear exception to previous research.
Prolif
 1NC
There’s a heg internal to preventing prolif in the heg impact section
 EX - Impacts - Generic
Proliferation causes nuclear war – accidents, adventurism, and preemptive
strikes
Kroenig 15 (Matthew Kroenig, Georgetown School of Foreign Service Assistant Professor and
International Relations Field Chair, Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol 38, No 1-2, “The History of
Proliferation Optimism: Does It Have a Future?” , p. 98-125, accessed 6-20-19, TandFOnline,)
The spread of nuclear weapons poses at least six severe threats to international peace and security including: nuclear war, nuclear
terrorism, global and regional instability, constrained US freedom of action, weakened alliances, and further nuclear proliferation.
Each of these threats has received extensive treatment elsewhere and this review is not intended to replicate or even necessarily to
improve upon these previous efforts. Rather the goals of this section are more modest: to usefully bring together and recap the
many reasons why we should be pessimistic about the likely consequences of nuclear proliferation.
Many of these threats will be illuminated with a discussion of a case of much contemporary concern: Iran’s advanced nuclear
program. Nuclear War The
greatest threat posed by the spread of nuclear weapons is nuclear war.
The more states in possession of nuclear weapons, the greater the probability that
somewhere, someday, there will be a catastrophic nuclear war. To date, nuclear weapons have only been
used in warfare once. In 1945, the United States used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bringing World War II to a close.
Many analysts point to the 65-plus-year tradition of nuclear non-use as evidence that nuclear weapons are unusable, but it would be
naïve to think that nuclear weapons will never be used again simply because they have not been used for some time. After all,
analysts in the 1990s argued that worldwide economic downturns like the Great Depression were a thing of the past, only to be
surprised by the dot-com bubble bursting later in the decade and the Great Recession of the late 2000s.48 This author, for one,
would be surprised if nuclear weapons are not used again sometime in his lifetime. Before reaching a state of MAD,
new nuclear states go through a transition period in which they lack a secure-second strike
capability. In this context, one or both states might believe that it has an incentive to use
nuclear weapons first. For example, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, neither Iran, nor its nuclear-armed rival, Israel, will
have a secure, second-strike capability. Even though it is believed to have a large arsenal, given its small size and lack of
strategic depth, Israel might not be confident that it could absorb a nuclear strike and respond
with a devastating counterstrike. Similarly, Iran might eventually be able to build a large and
survivable nuclear arsenal, but, when it first crosses the nuclear threshold, Tehran will have a
small and vulnerable nuclear force. ]In these pre-MAD situations, there are at least three ways that nuclear war could
occur. First, the state with the nuclear advantage might believe it has a splendid first strike
capability. In a crisis, Israel might, therefore, decide to launch a preventive nuclear strike to
disarm Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Indeed, this incentive might be further increased by Israel’s
aggressive strategic culture that emphasizes preemptive action. Second, the state with a small
and vulnerable nuclear arsenal, in this case Iran, might feel use them or lose them pressures.
That is, in a crisis, Iran might decide to strike first rather than risk having its entire nuclear
arsenal destroyed. Third, as Thomas Schelling has argued, nuclear war could result due to the
reciprocal fear of surprise attack.49 If there are advantages to striking first, one state might
start a nuclear war in the belief that war is inevitable and that it would be better to go first
than to go second. Fortunately, there is no historic evidence of this dynamic occurring in a nuclear context, but it is still
possible. In an Israeli–Iranian crisis, for example, Israel and Iran might both prefer to avoid a nuclear war, but decide to strike first
rather than suffer a devastating first attack from an opponent. Even in a world of MAD, however, when both sides have secure,
second-strike capabilities, there is still a risk of nuclear war . Rational deterrence theory assumes nuclear-armed states
are governed by rational leaders who would not intentionally launch a suicidal nuclear war. This assumption appears to have applied
to past and current nuclear powers, but there is no guarantee that it will continue to hold in the future. Iran’s theocratic
government, despite its inflammatory rhetoric, has followed a fairly pragmatic foreign policy since 1979, but it contains leaders
who hold millenarian religious worldviews and could one day ascend to power. We cannot rule out the possibility that, as nuclear
weapons continue to spread, some leader somewhere will choose to launch a nuclear war, knowing full well that it could result in
self-destruction. One does not need to resort to irrationality, however, to imagine nuclear war under MAD. Nuclear weapons may
deter leaders from intentionally launching full-scale wars, but they do not mean the end of international politics. As was discussed
above, nuclear-armed states still have conflicts of interest and leaders still seek to coerce
nuclear-armed adversaries. Leaders might, therefore, choose to launch a limited nuclear war.50 This strategy might be
especially attractive to states in a position of conventional inferiority that might have an incentive to escalate a crisis quickly to the
nuclear level. During the Cold War, the United States planned to use nuclear weapons first to stop a Soviet invasion of Western
Europe given NATO’s conventional inferiority.51 As Russia’s conventional power has deteriorated since the end of the Cold War,
Moscow has come to rely more heavily on nuclear weapons in its military doctrine. Indeed, Russian strategy calls for the use of
nuclear weapons early in a conflict (something that most Western strategists would consider to be escalatory) as a way to de-
escalate a crisis. Similarly, Pakistan’s military plans for nuclear use in the event of an invasion from conventionally stronger India.
And finally, Chinese generals openly talk about the possibility of nuclear use against a US superpower in a possible East Asia
contingency. Second, as was also discussed above, leaders can make a ‘threat that leaves something to
chance’.52 They can initiate a nuclear crisis. By playing these risky games of nuclear brinkmanship,
states can increase the risk of nuclear war in an attempt to force a less resolved adversary to
back down. Historical crises have not resulted in nuclear war, but many of them, including the 1962
Cuban Missile Crisis, have come close. And scholars have documented historical incidents when accidents nearly led to
war.53 When we think about future nuclear crisis dyads, such as Iran and Israel, with fewer sources of
stability than existed during the Cold War, we can see that there is a real risk that a future
crisis could result in a devastating nuclear exchange. Nuclear Terrorism The spread of nuclear
weapons also increases the risk of nuclear terrorism.54 While September 11th was one of the greatest
tragedies in American history, it would have been much worse had Osama Bin Laden possessed nuclear weapons. Bin Laden
declared it a ‘religious duty’ for Al- Qa’eda to acquire nuclear weapons and radical clerics have
issued fatwas declaring it permissible to use nuclear weapons in Jihad against the West.55
Unlike states, which can be more easily deterred, there is little doubt that if terrorists
acquired nuclear weapons, they would use them. 56 Indeed, in recent years, many US politicians and security
analysts have argued that nuclear terrorism poses the greatest threat to US national security.57 Analysts have pointed
out the tremendous hurdles that terrorists would have to overcome in order to acquire
nuclear weapons.58 Nevertheless, as nuclear weapons spread, the possibility that they will
eventually fall into terrorist hands increases. States could intentionally transfer nuclear
weapons, or the fissile material required to build them, to terrorist groups. There are good
reasons why a state might be reluctant to transfer nuclear weapons to terrorists, but, as
nuclear weapons spread, the probability that a leader might someday purposely arm a
terrorist group increases. Some fear, for example, that Iran, with its close ties to Hamas and Hizballah, might be at a
heightened risk of transferring nuclear weapons to terrorists. Moreover, even if no state would ever intentionally transfer nuclear
capabilities to terrorists, a
new nuclear state, with underdeveloped security procedures, might be
vulnerable to theft, allowing terrorist groups or corrupt or ideologically-motivated insiders to
transfer dangerous material to terrorists. There is evidence, for example, that representatives from Pakistan’s
atomic energy establishment met with Al-Qa’eda members to discuss a possible nuclear deal.59 Finally, a nuclear-armed
state could collapse, resulting in a breakdown of law and order and a loose nukes problem. US
officials are currently very concerned about what would happen to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons if the government were to fall. As
nuclear weapons spread, this problem is only further amplified. Iran is a country with a history of revolutions and a government with
a tenuous hold on power. The regime change that Washington has long dreamed about in Tehran could actually become a
nightmare if a nuclear-armed Iran suffered a breakdown in authority, forcing us to worry about the fate of Iran’s nuclear arsenal.
Regional Instability The spread of nuclear weapons also emboldens nuclear powers,
contributing to regional instability. States that lack nuclear weapons need to fear direct
military attack from other states, but states with nuclear weapons can be confident that they
can deter an intentional military attack, giving them an incentive to be more aggressive in the
conduct of their foreign policy. In this way, nuclear weapons provide a shield under which
states can feel free to engage in lower-level aggression. Indeed, international relations theories about the
‘stability-instability paradox’ maintain that stability at the nuclear level contributes to conventional instability.60 Historically,
we have seen that the spread of nuclear weapons has emboldened their possessors and
contributed to regional instability. Recent scholarly analyses have demonstrated that, after
controlling for other relevant factors, nuclear-weapon states are more likely to engage in
conflict than nonnuclear-weapon states and that this aggressiveness is more pronounced in
new nuclear states that have less experience with nuclear diplomacy. 61 Similarly, research on internal
decision-making in Pakistan reveals that Pakistani foreign policymakers may have been emboldened by the acquisition of nuclear
weapons, which encouraged them to initiate militarized disputes against India.62 Currently, Iran restrains its foreign policy because
it fears major military retaliation from the United States or Israel, but with nuclear weapons it could feel free to push harder. A
nuclear-armed Iran would likely step up support to terrorist and proxy groups and engage in
more aggressive coercive diplomacy. With a nuclear-armed Iran increasingly throwing its
weight around in the region, we could witness an even more crisis prone Middle East. And in a
poly-nuclear Middle East with Israel, Iran, and, in the future, possibly other states, armed with nuclear weapons, any
one of those crises could result in a catastrophic nuclear exchange.

Global proliferation causes a repeat of the Cold War

Blade 3/23 (The editorial board - The Blade. 23 March 2019. "Nuclear
proliferation is a dangerous game".
https://www.toledoblade.com/opinion/editorials/2019/03/23/return-of-mad-
nuclear-proliferation-dangerous-game/stories/20190323033)
New START, the 2010 agreement made by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that limits the number
of strategic nuclear warheads and missile launchers, is also expected to be scrapped. With the restraints coming
off, both countries have shown an eagerness to grow their nuclear arsenals. The
U.S., in particular, has committed to a 10-year plan to modernize and expand its
nuclear weapons systems at a cost of $494 billion. Russia is likely not far behind. As
Mr. Putin chillingly said following the recent suspension of the INF, “If [the U.S. starts] working on new weapons, so will we.” This
shift in nuclear strategy could signal major changes around the world. If the
policy of nonproliferation promoted by the United States and Russia in the 1980s
continues to fade, countries like Iran are more likely to seek out nuclear arms
while countries like Pakistan, India, and North Korea will hope to expand their
arsenals. Meanwhile, the war of words between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin, who have used ominous
phrasing like “no choice” and “symmetrical response” to describe their nuclear policies, has the dangerous
potential to boil over into something much more grave. During the first Cold War,
people said that the United States and Russia were trending toward mutually
assured destruction. If the two countries continue to walk back all the progress
they have made on nuclear arms, we are likely to find ourselves on that same
well-worn path.
 EX - Impacts - ME Prolif
Middle East proliferation causes nuclear war
Saab 18 (Bilal Saab, Georgetown University Security Studies Program associate professor.
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 9-25-2018, “The coming Middle East missile arms race,”
https://thebulletin.org/2018/09/the-coming-middle-east-missile-arms-race/)
As if that were not scary enough, the nuclear future of the Middle East is also increasingly uncertain ,
now that the United States has withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action , the deal
that limited Iran’s nuclear development in exchange for sanctions relief. At the same time , at least half a dozen regional
powers including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Qatar see
peaceful nuclear energy as a long-term solution to their fossil-fuel dependence. The growth of
nuclear power generation in the region could exacerbate the risk of nuclear proliferation , as
the same technologies and materials are required to develop both nuclear energy and nuclear
weapons. Should Middle East civilian nuclear development become militarized, possession of
fleets of offensive missiles—arguably the most effective delivery vehicle for nuclear warheads—could magnify the
potential danger .

ME prolif leads to Saudi-Iran nuclear war

Kinzer 19 (Stephen Kinzer, former New York Times reporter. Common Dreams, 9 March 2019,
“We’re Edging Closer to Nuclear War,”
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/09/were-edging-closer-nuclear-war)
It’s easy to imagine even more dangerous faceoffs elsewhere in the world. The most terrifying new
nuclear powers would be Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran has enough scientific talent to develop a bomb, and Saudi
Arabia could buy what it needs. Hearing the leaders of those countries snarl at each other is scary enough today. If
both had nuclear weapons — not a far-fetched scenario if present trends continue — war
between them could be devastating. So could a war over Taiwan, if Taiwan were to build a nuclear arsenal to compete
with China’s. Serbia and Kosovo are in bitter conflict over disputed territory. So are Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Once while waiting for a flight at an airport in Ecuador, I stared at a giant map of the country that was painted on the terminal wall. It looked odd. Ecuador seemed much larger
than I remembered. Finally, I realized that on this map, its borders had been drawn to include territory in the Amazon that Ecuador lost to Peru in the 19th century and still
claims. A banner over the map proclaimed: “Ecuador Was, Is and Will Always Be an Amazon Nation.” The dispute over this territory has set off several wars between Peru and
Ecuador. The last one, in 1995, led to several hundred casualties. In a world where nuclear weapons are widely spread, political passion could turn an obscure dispute like this
into global catastrophe.
That world is emerging. The Trump administration has been moving systematically to undermine accords that have kept nuclear proliferation within possibly manageable limits
over the last half-century. Most recently it announced that the United States will withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, which
regulates several classes of nuclear missiles. Steps like this produce little if any military gain and damage the United States in the court of world opinion.

Senior policymakers around President Trump reject the very idea of arms control. They are resuming the
wrecking rampage launched by President George W. Bush, who pulled the United States out of the Anti-Ballistic Missle treaty in
2001. That move left Russia and China free to develop a new generation of hypersonic missiles. All steps away from control of
nuclear arms have effects like that. They also, however, make a stark political point. By
renouncing arms control, the
United States declares its wish for a world without treaties; if that frees other countries to
build nuclear arsenals, so be it.
Giving up on arms control increases the possibility that governments with violently irredentist
ambitions could build or acquire nuclear weapons. That volatile mix — a local conflict plus
nuclear weapons — could one day produce the explosion humanity fears . Last month’s clash between
India and Pakistan was a warning. Cooler heads prevailed, but that won’t happen every time. By dismantling accords that limit
nuclear weapons, we bring the explosion steadily closer.
Riots
 1NC
There would be a freezing of all monetary transactions and leads to riots writ
large
Nwogu 19' ( March 28 Analyzing geopolitics, the global economy, and the military affairs that
impact our world."The Coming Collapse of the U.S. Economic System — Blame the U.S.
Dollar"https://medium.com/@meziechinwogu1/the-coming-collapse-of-the-u-s-economic-
system-blame-the-u-s-dollar-b4c4238741a4 What Would Happen in an Economic Collapse
Modern economies are built mostly on faith. People have confidence in the U.S. Dollar because the U.S. economy is the
biggest and most significant economy in the world . Also, the U.S. economy frequently outperforms the economies of
Europe and Japan. The US dollar is backed up by the output of American workers. When people do lose faith in the U.S Dollar, its value will plunge, the
stock market will crash, and the U.S economy will collapse. The U.S. National Debt is over $22 Trillion. However, the total the US total debt (debt owed
by state & local governments, Household, businesses, financial institution, and the Federal Government) is
a staggering $74 Trillion. The point I’m making is that this charade cannot continue much longer.
China, the European Union, India, Brazil, Russia, and other major economies are very aware of this coming crisis. It’s hard to imagine the U.S Dollar
being replaced by another currency as the world’s economic standard, but it could very well happen. It is possible to wake up one
morning and see the U.S dollar slide into a death spiral, stocks in a free fall, and hyperinflation . If
the U.S. Dollar and the economy collapses, the result will be the most significant stock market crash ever in the New York Stock Exchange,
probably 1000–2000 points in the first day . Thus, the major stock exchange in London, Frankfurt, Tokyo, and
Hong Kong will have to suspend trading. Of course, this suspension will significantly increase the panic among the general
population. Once people all over the world realize that they are a significant stock market crash happening, there will be a run on banks similar to the
1930s. In
response, major financial institutions will put a freeze on most or all banking
transactions, including credit card transactions. This will significantly increase panic.
Due to the bank freeze, employers will be unable to make bank transactions to pay their employees. With employers unable to access frozen
bank accounts, people won’t be paid , bills won’t get paid, etc. Consequently, most businesses
will be forced to either go out of business or significantly reduce their workforce;
unemployment will become rampant. With millions out of a job, the number of unemployment claims will skyrocket, bankrupting
unemployment insurance programs in the major countries. When people realize that the value of their hard earned wealth is about to evaporate, they
will take drastic measures to prevent it. Those who own stores and businesses will increase their prices for goods and services drastically to survive the
crisis. Panic hoarding of food, medical supplies, gasoline, heating oil, and other commodities will erupt .
Runaway inflation, gas lines,
and rationing will begin. Widespread violence will explode across America. That could range
from inner-city riots or gang wars . The breakdown of law and order will be the ultimate effect of
rioting and looting, as they lose all their sense of right and wrong and are increasingly
empowered in their sense of anger, panic, and greed. Major social upheaval will occur in America, and the fear of the
unknown will set in amongst the populace. The U.S. will be hardest hit because it has the largest economy, an enormous national debt, an economy
based on credit, and a population greatly divided by race, ethnic origin, gender, color, religious beliefs, cultural differences, and financial status.

Riots kill millions and lead to coups, civil wars, and revolutions
PMC 12
US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health/ 2012 Oct 31/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485346///dvb
Civil unrest is a powerful form of collective human dynamics, which has led to major
transitions of societies in modern history . The study of collective human dynamics, including collective
aggression , has been the focus of much discussion in the context of modeling and identification of universal patterns of
behavior. In contrast , the possibility that civil unrest activities, across countries and over long time

periods, are governed by universal mechanisms has not been explored . Here, records of civil unrest of
170 countries during the period 1919–2008 are analyzed. It is demonstrated that the distributions of the number of unrest events
per year are robustly reproduced by a nonlinear, spatially extended dynamical model, which reflects the spread of civil
disorder between geographic regions connected through social and communication
networks. The results also expose the similarity between global social instability and the dynamics of natural hazards and
epidemics.
Civil unrest contagion occurs when social, economic, and political stress accumulate slowly ,
and is released spontaneously in the form of social unrest on short time scales to nearest and
long-range neighboring regions that are susceptible to social, economic, and political
stress  [1]–[5]. Unrest events have led to significant societal and cultural changes throughout history. Examples include the
spread of discontent in France in 1848 that proliferated to most of Europe and parts of Latin America; the wave of urban racial riots
in the United States in the 1960s; and the 1989 uprisings against communism in various central and eastern European countries,
symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall. More recently, social instability has spread rapidly in the Arab world – from nonviolent
protest movements in Tunisia and Egypt that toppled long-established authoritarian regimes, to a protest movement that evolved to
a full-blown civil war in Libya. These social unrest events span the full spectrum from civil wars,
revolutions, and coups d’état that have killed millions of people to relatively peaceful forms
of intra-state conflicts, such as anti-government demonstrations, riots, and general strikes  [5]–
[10].
 EX - I/Ls
There would be a crisis and the government wouldn’t be able to fix it
Ludwig 12' ( Olly, Olly Ludwig is the former managing editor of ETF.com. Previously, he was a
financial advisor at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney and an editor at Bloomberg News. Before that,
Ludwig was a journalist at the Reuters News Agency in New York.November 14, 2012, "peter
Schiff: Dollar Colllpase before Obama is Out" https://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-
news/4250-peter-schiff-dollar-collapse-before-obamas-out?)
Ludwig: So you think a major crisis is going to happen in the next four years?

Schiff: Will there be a crisis? Oh yes! We’re going to have a currency crisis and/or a sovereign debt crisis during his term and it’s "going to hit the
fan."
Ludwig: So you see Treasury auctions starting to go poorly? What are we talking about here?
Schiff: That, or the Federal Reserve is going to be the only buyer for Treasurys. But there will be a precipitous drop in the
value of the dollar; prices are going to skyrocket for pretty much everyth ing; and maybe the government
will impose price controls on food products and energy, and everybody is going to be standing in long lines just to get the basic
necessities of life.
Take a look at Greece today. Look at all the government employees protesting. It will look like that, except not as civil.
Ludwig: If the you-know-what hits the fan—as you say it will—do you think the government has any role in alleviating some of the
dislocations, the joblessness, the homelessness?
Schiff: The government can’t alleviate it; the government is the cause of it. The only thing the government can do to
alleviate it is to get out of the way. But the more it’s involved, the worse it’s going to be.
It’s not a good thing that our currency is going to implode in value and that
Americans are going to be
impoverished. That’s not a good thing, but it’s a consequence of all the bad policies that have been pursued. It’s time to pay
the piper.

There would be widespread riots and civil unrest

Hartmann 16’ (June 26, 2016,https://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/04/wars-we-
fight-%E2%80%93-god-save-petrodollar-coming-collapse-dollar)
The Collapse of the Dollar
The pending collapse of the Dollar is being seen/felt globally …in world economies, financial markets and in
ever-expanding military actions. The Petrodollar Titanic is sinking. There are simply too many holes to be plugged at this point in
order to keep the system afloat.
There are enormous amounts of excess dollars floating around globally right now because of the Petrodollar system. As more countries (plan to) move
away from this system, the excess dollars will begin to find their way back to the US economy. In other words, as the dollar
becomes less
significant, so will the need to hold dollars and reserves in the form of U.S. Treasury Securities.
U.S. government debt will become increasingly more difficult to finance and inflation will show up as the unneeded dollars begin to flood the U.S.
economy.
What will happened when (not if) the dollar collapses? If we don’t get into an all out international war before that happens, this
is what we can expect at home here in the USA:
• The dollar will lose it value • The weight of the US
deficit will come crashing down • Borrowing will become prohibitively
expensive. The free financing made possible by the Petrodollar system will be eliminated • Low cost oil imports made possible by the
Petrodollar system will no longer be possible • Hyperinflation will occur very quickly • People will not be able to afford
to buy food to eat, gas for their cars, energy to heat/cool their homes, water, clothes to wear or any of the
basic necessities • Payments from social services such as social security, disability, food stamps and pensions may be reduced, or perhaps even
eliminated • Production and transportation will be severely impacted. Farm (food) production will decrease, energy
production will decrease, transportation (planes, cars, buses, trains, trucking, etc) will be prohibitively expensive • Widespread riot s and
civil unrest will occur • Marshall law will be enacted
This time is approaching rapidly. The preparations for the impending collapse can clearly be seen with the restrictive legislation being passed (quite
swiftly at this point) that will be needed in order to enforce order as the chaos begins to unfold.
What can we do as individuals to avert this disaster? Sadly, at this point it will be difficult to avoid. It would be kind of like Enron deciding in their final
hour to start operating in an ethical and economically feasible manner. Once the snowball is that large, it’s hard to stop. We can however, try and be
prepared as best as possible.
It would cause riot in major places access the world
Shield 11' ( Silver June 23 The Sons of Liberty Academy is the culmination of 6 years of
research and development to create a formalized awakening process to help Americans deal
with a post-dollar world."Here Are The 5 Worst Places To Be When The Dollar Collapses"
https://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-5-worst-places-to-be-when-the-dollar-collapses-
2011-6))
So this leads me to the Top 5 Places Not To Be When the Dollar Collapses.

1. Israel- This Anglo-American beach head into the Middle East was first conceived by the most powerful family in the world, the Rothschilds, in
1917. The Balfour Declaration said that there will be a Zionist Israel years before World War two and the eventual establishment of Israel. Israel has not
been a good neighbor to its Muslim nations and has always had the two biggest bullies on the block at it's back. When the dollar collapses, the
United States will have too much on its plate both domestically and internationally to worry
about such a non-strategic piece of land . This will leave Israel very weak at a time when tensions
will be high. This very thin strip of desert land will not be able to with stand the economic reality of importing its food and fuel or the political
reality of being surrounded by Muslims.
2. Southern California- The land of Fruits and Nuts turns into Battlefield Los Angeles. 20
million people packed into an area that
has no water and thus food is not good to say the least. Throw on top of the huge wealth disparities and the proximity
to a narco state and this does not bode well. We have seen riots for Rodney King, what will happen when the dollar is destroyed and food an fuel stop
coming into this area. People will get desperate and do crazy things, especially when a huge proportion of its citizens are on anti depressants. If food
and fuel cannot get in, what about Zoloft? At a time when people's world are falling apart they lack the ability to deal
with this new paradigm. If people come off of these drugs too fast they suffer psychotic breaks
and you will have thousands of shootings or suicides.
3. England- The Land of the Big Brother and former Empire of world wide slave and drug trade will
suffer heavily. The stiff upper lip that their the British Elite ingrained into their sheeple will not work anymore as the British population explodes.
The human character will sacrifice and unite for a foreign enemy,but not if the enemy has always been the Elite. The Anglo-American Empire may pull
off another false flag to distract it's population on another Emmanuel Goldstein like in 1984, but I feel this collapse will happen before they pull it off.
This will make all eyes point at the British Elite as solely responsible for this catastrophe. We have seen massive riots for soccer
matches with hooligans. What will happen when this island with very little food and fuel gets cut off?
4. New York City- Another large urban area living too high on the dollar hog. NYC is the area I moved out of in 2008. There is little doubt that all of the
wealth in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut is derivative off of Wall Street wealth. The savings and investments of the whole nation and much of
the world flows through this financial capital. As the world wakes up to the massive financial fraud, this will lead to the destruction of capital like we
have never seen before. This will have tremendous effects on the regional economy as people driving in Mercedes suddenly wonder where their next
meal is coming from.
5. Washington D.C.- The political collapse of the Federal Government will wreck havoc on the hugely inflated local economy. As more and more states
find it necessary to assert their natural control, the Federal Government will suddenly loose power and importance as the whole world suffers from a
Global Hurricane Katrina. The money that they create and spend, will become worthless and the government minions pensions will evaporate.
Millions that once relied on the ability to force others to send their money to them,will learn that the real power has always been at the most local
level. Massive decentralization will be the answer to globalization gone mad. Local
families and communities will forgo
sending money and power out of their community, as they will care about their next meal and
keeping warm.
 EX - SV Impact
Riots entrench massive structural violence
Fielding 11
Steven Fielding is an academic in the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham where he
is Professor of Political History and Director of the Centre for British Politics. September 5,
2011/nottspolitics.org/2011/09/05/the-impact-of-the-riots-people-feel-more-threatened-and-
prejudiced///dvb
Rather, following the riots people felt more threatened in specifically two ways. First, people were more likely to feel that
their safety was threatened, i.e. they were more fearful of increasing violence and vandalism in their neighbourhood. Second, they
were more likely to feel that wider British culture and society was under threat, i.e. they were more fearful that British culture is
threatened. Feelings of security threat increased by 10% and feelings of cultural threat increased by 5%. These were ‘statistically
significant’ effects. In short, citizens were more likely after the riots to feel that their security and wider society was under threat.
This has had important consequences. Although people did not associate the riots with specific minority
groups (whether Muslim/Black/East European communities), they were more prejudiced in their aftermath .
Those who felt afterwards that their security was under greater threat were more likely to express hostile attitudes toward Muslims.
Meanwhile, those who felt afterwards that wider British society and culture were under greater threat were more likely to express
hostility toward Muslims and also Black and East European communities. So, whereas the riots were not associated in the public
mindset with particular minority groups, they have nonetheless increased prejudice in British society.
Our findings suggest that the riots have lead citizens to feel more threatened , which in turn has intensified
intolerance toward minority groups . This indicates that beyond their immediate impact on property and criminal
convictions, the riots have had a broader impact by undermining social cohesion and entrenching negative
attitudes toward minority groups (even though the public did not associate the riots directly with these groups).
Sanctions Programs
 1NC
That decks U.S. sanctions and leads to rampant military campaigns
Das 18 ‘ ( september 07, Satyajit Das is a former banker whose latest book is "A Banquet of
Consequences." He is also the author of "Extreme Money" and "Traders, Guns &
Money." https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/how-the-us-has-
made-a-weapon-of-the-dollar/articleshow/65715068.cms)
The dollar’s pivotal role — an “exorbitant privilege,” in the term coined by then French Finance Minister Valéry Giscard
d'Estaing in 1965 — allows the U.S. easily to finance its trade and budget deficits. The nation is protected against
balance-of-payments crises, because it imports and services borrowing in its own currency. American monetary
policies, such as quantitative easing, can influence the value of the dollar to gain a competitive advantage. But the
real power of the dollar is its relationship with sanctions programs. Legislation such as the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Patriot Act allow Washington to weaponize
payment flows. The proposed Defending Elections From Threats by Establishing Redlines Act and the Defending
American Security From Kremlin Aggression Act would extend that armory. When combined with access it gained to data
from Swift, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication’s global messaging system, the U.S.
exerts unprecedented control over global economic activity.
Sanctions target persons, entities, organizations, a regime or an entire country. Secondary curbs restrict foreign
corporations, financial institutions and individuals from doing business with sanctioned entities. Any dollar payment flowing
through a U.S. bank or the American payments system provides the necessary nexus for the U.S. to prosecute the
offender or act against its American assets.
This gives the nation extraterritorial reach over non-Americans trading with or financing a sanctioned party.
The mere threat of prosecution can destabilize finances, trade and currency markets, effectively disrupting the activities of
non-Americans.
The risk is real. BNP Paribas SA paid $9 billion in fines and was suspended from dollar clearing for one year for
violating sanctions against Iran, Cuba and Sudan. HSBC Holdings Plc, Standard Chartered Plc, Commerzbank AG
and Clearstream Banking SA have paid large fines for similar breaches.
Secondary sanctions made it difficult for United Co. Rusal to refinance dollar borrowings when global businesses, banks
and exchanges were forced to stop dealing with the Russian company. Its bonds and shares plunged, even though
the company sells only 14 percent of its products in the U.S., does not use American banks, and is listed in
Moscow and Hong Kong. ZTE Corp., a Chinese electronics company, was hit hard by the inability to buy essential
components from suppliers because of sanctions for ..
China, Russia and increasingly Europe want an alternative reserve currency system. The problem is that immediate
replacement of the dollar is difficult. First, the euro, the yen, the yuan and the ruble are not realistic options. The
euro’s long-term future and stability isn’t assured, while Japan’s economy remains trapped in two decades of torpor. The
Chinese and Russian political and economic systems lack transparency, and the yuan isn’t fully convertible.
Second, the required change in infrastructure is daunting. Foreign-exchange markets where the dollar is the currency of
reference would have to be fundamentally restructured. Deep and liquid money markets to support a reserve
currency can’t be conjured up overnight.
Third, most candidates are reluctant to take on the role of a global reserve currency because of tensions between national
and global economy policy. The economist Robert Triffin pointed out that the country whose medium of exchange is the
global reserve currency must meet external demand for foreign exchange. This necessitates running large trade
deficits, requiring fundamental changes in the mercantilist policies of Germany, Japan and China. This means
that the U.S. can continue to use the dollar to help further its trade, financial and geopolitical aims, largely outside the
strictures of international laws and institutions and without the need for messy, unpredictable military campaigns. As
John Connally Jr., Richard Nixon’s Treasury secretary, put it in 1971: The dollar is “our currency, but your problem.”

Sanctions key to contain NoKo

Zoffer 19' ( April 29, 2019 Jashua P. is a legal scholar for Yale University "The Dollar and the
United States' Exorbitant Power to Sanction"
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/dollar-
and-the-united-states-exorbitant-power-to-
sanction/419F2FDF5BF6E052258DEE592853D6C3/core-reader
The Weaponized Dollar
Dollar-based sanctions are a unique form of what Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro call “outcasting”—a punishment that
consists of “denying the disobedient the benefits of social cooperation and membership.”13 The potency of these sanctions derives
from the exclusion of targeted actors from the dollar-based international financial system and the denial of the
benefits associated with participation in it. Outcasting is generally cooperative—cooperation is often necessary to engender a network of sufficient
importance to make exclusion from it a costly sanction. Dollar outcasting is not. The substantial network externalities resulting from wide use of the
dollar are organic and arise mostly from “voluntary” choices (even if, in practice, market dynamics leave little actual choice). There is no international
arrangement mandating the dollar's role. So long as commercial actors and nations opt into the dollar-based financial system (or lack a realistic
alternative), the United
States will be able to flex its financial muscles unilaterally .14
The United States has two primary legal tools for dollar outcasting: Section
311 of the Patriot Act and the Specially
Designed Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List . Section 311 empowers the Treasury Department to compel U.S. banks
to deny services to any entity designated as a “primary money laundering concern.”15 In particular, Section 311(b)(5) allows the Treasury Department
to ban U.S. banks from providing correspondent banking services to the designated entity, effectively cutting off its access to dollar clearing and
denying it meaningful participation in the global financial system. Without this access, a bank is unable to provide its
foreign clients with the dollar payments services they require . Critically, this tool can be brought to
bear against an entire jurisdiction (e.g., Iran ) or a single bank (e.g., one serving terrorist groups). It can
function as a machete or a scalpel. As Juan Zarate writes, such action is a “ virtual financial death penalty,” for the reasons discussed
earlier.16
Moreover, the Treasury Department often uses Section 311 to coerce foreign financial institutions without even applying these measures directly.
Section 311 requires the Department to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) before designating a primary money laundering concern,
effectively a formal threat that implies a high risk of impending legal action. Doing so imposes reputational costs (and possible subsequent regulatory
scrutiny) on any bank that continues to transact with the threatened entity and signals potential future regulatory action against the entity that could
bar it—and potentially any of its counterparties—from the U.S. market.
The mere threat of Section 311 designation has been catastrophic for targeted institutions.17 In September 2005, Treasury designated Banco Delta Asia
(BDA) as a primary money laundering concern and published an NPRM that would bar U.S. banks from providing correspondent banking services to
BDA.18 The proposed rule cited BDA's
provision of banking services to facilitate a variety of criminal
activities and violations of international law by the government of North Korea . The rule's true target was
North Korea, via BDA as a financial intermediary.19 The effect was immediate: 34 percent of BDA deposits totaling over US$130 million were
withdrawn in days, and U.S. banks quickly ceased all business with BDA, cutting it off from dollar financing. The bank ultimately collapsed and was
forced into receivership. Other banks around the world with links to the
North Korean government swiftly cut ties and
preemptively froze North Korean assets, accounts, and transaction s.20 All of this unfolded within a year and
without any actual sanctions. The final rule imposing the fifth Section 311 Special Measure (banning correspondent accounts) was not promulgated
until March 2007.21
More recently, the Treasury Department's publication in February 2018 of an NPRM that would prohibit Latvian ABLV Bank from maintaining a
correspondent account under Section 311 led the bank to fold within days of the announcement. 22
Accused of money laundering,
including on behalf of North Korea's nuclear missile program, ABLV faced immediate deposit
outflows and a liquidity crisis following the announcement . On February 24, 2018, the European Central Bank
announced ABLV would be wound down.23 For now, the United States' exorbitant power to sanction remains as strong as ever.
The Treasury also engages in dollar outcasting using the SDN list —the list of individuals and entities with whom
transactions by U.S. persons are blocked pursuant to sanctions programs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Trading with the
Enemy Act, and other particularized sanctions statutes.24 Inclusion
on the SDN list requires U.S. banks and financial
institutions to freeze the assets of the designated entity and to deny additional transactions with
them, effectively limiting their access to existing financial resources and cutting off access to
dollar financing (similar to Section 311).
Both of these tools rely on three interrelated features of global dollar finance for their efficacy. First, the interconnected nature of the global banking system means that

The bank of a
continuing to do business with a designated entity, or an intermediary of a designated entity under Section 311, risks exposure to liability.

primary money laundering concern, after all, is also a money launderer .25
Second, and consequent to the first, the choice between cutting ties with illicit actors , plus the banks that (allegedly) handle their
money, and losing access to the U.S. financial market is an easy one .26 No bank will choose the illicit
business of a single client (or even a country or set of clients) over access to dollar clearing services because
to do so would kill the rest of their busine ss.27 Consequently, dollar sanctions against a foreign financial institution under
domestic law will often result in the isolation of the targeted institution not only by U.S. banks but by foreign banks who are concerned with
maintaining their dollar market access.
The importance of U.S. financial market access for foreign banks means that U.S. unilateral financial sanctions often become de facto secondary
sanctions. Indeed, the United States has encouraged this behavior by reaching out to foreign banks through nonbinding, diplomatic channels to
“educate” them about the risks of continuing to do business with targeted entities.28 More often than not, it seems to work.
Third, and most critically for the success of dollar outcasting, illicit actors are heavily
reliant on the dollar financing system
for the same reasons as everyone else: there is no alternative. Criminals and rogue states need banks to conduct
business and deposit their assets, and banks need dollars.29 But because (at least, most) banks need dollars more than they
need illicit business, dollar outcasting effectively compels banks to cut off these actors and
starve them of the financing they need. So long as the world relies on dollar-based finance, rogue actors will find it difficult to
escape targeted dollar sanctions.
Extinction
Hayes & Hamel-Green, 10 – *Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute for Security and
Sustainable Development, AND ** Executive Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Education and Human
Development act Victoria University (1/5/10, Executive Dean at Victoria, “The Path Not Taken,
the Way Still Open: Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia,”
http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/10001HayesHamalGreen.pdf)
The international community is increasingly aware that cooperative diplomacy is the most productive way to tackle the multiple,
interconnected global challenges facing humanity, not least of which is the increasing proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of
mass destruction. Korea
and Northeast Asia are instances where risks of nuclear proliferation and
actual nuclear use arguably have increased in recent years. This negative trend is a product of continued US
nuclear threat projection against the DPRK as part of a general program of coercive diplomacy in this region, North Korea’s nuclear
weapons programme, the breakdown in the Chinese-hosted Six Party Talks towards the end of the Bush Administration, regional
concerns over China’s increasing military power, and concerns within some quarters in regional states (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan)
about whether US extended deterrence (“nuclear umbrella”) afforded under bilateral security treaties can be relied upon for
protection. The consequences of failing to address the proliferation threat posed by the North
Korea developments, and related political and economic issues, are serious , not only for the Northeast
Asian region but for the whole international community. At worst, there is the possibility of nuclear
attack1, whether by intention, miscalculation, or merely accident , leading to the resumption of
Korean War hostilities. On the Korean Peninsula itself, key population centres are well within short or medium range
missiles. The whole of Japan is likely to come within North Korean missile range. Pyongyang has a population of over 2 million, Seoul
(close to the North Korean border) 11 million, and Tokyo over 20 million. Even
a limited nuclear exchange would
result in a holocaust of unprecedented proportions. But the catastrophe within the region would not be the
only outcome. New research indicates that even a limited nuclear war in the region would rearrange our global climate far more
quickly than global warming. Westberg draws attention to new studies modelling the effects of even a limited nuclear exchange
involving approximately 100 Hiroshima-sized 15 kt bombs2 (by comparison it should be noted that the United States currently
deploys warheads in the range 100 to 477 kt, that is, individual warheads equivalent in yield to a range of 6 to 32 Hiroshimas). The
studies indicate that the soot from the fires produced would lead to a decrease in global
temperature by 1.25 degrees Celsius for a period of 6-8 years.3 In Westberg’s view: That is not global winter, but the
nuclear darkness will cause a deeper drop in temperature than at any time during the last 1000
years. The temperature over the continents would decrease substantially more than the global average. A decrease in rainfall over
the continents would also follow…The period of nuclear darkness will cause much greater decrease in
grain production than 5% and it will continue for many years... hundreds of millions of people
will die from hunger…To make matters even worse, such amounts of smoke injected into the
stratosphere would cause a huge reduction in the Earth’s protective ozone. 4 These, of course, are not
the only consequences. Reactors might also be targeted, causing further mayhem and downwind
radiation effects, superimposed on a smoking, radiating ruin left by nuclear next-use . Millions of
refugees would flee the affected regions. The direct impacts, and the follow-on impacts on the global
economy via ecological and food insecurity , could make the present global financial crisis pale
by comparison. How the great powers, especially the nuclear weapons states respond to such a crisis, and in particular,
whether nuclear weapons are used in response to nuclear first-use, could make or break the global non proliferation and
disarmament regimes. There
could be many unanticipated impacts on regional and global security
relationships5, with subsequent nuclear breakout and geopolitical turbulence, including possible
loss-of-control over fissile material or warheads in the chaos of nuclear war, and aftermath
chain-reaction affects involving other potential proliferant states. The Korean nuclear proliferation issue is
not just a regional threat but a global one that warrants priority consideration from the international community.
 EX - Impact - Generic
Sanctions prevent terrorism, drug trafficking, and unchecked state actors
Durkin 19' ( Andrea Durkin is the Editor-in-Chief of TradeVistas and Founder of Sparkplug, LLC.
She is a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and an adjunct fellow
with CSIS. Ms. Durkin previously served as a U.S. Government trade negotiator and has proudly
taught International Trade for the last fourteen years as an Adjunct Associate Professor at
Georgetown University’s Master of Science in Foreign Service program., "U.S. DOLLAR PROVIDES
THE MUSCLE FOR ECONOMIC SANCTIONS"https://www.globaltrademag.com/global-trade-
daily/u-s-dollar-provides-the-muscle-for-economic-sanctions/
From drug kingpins to terrorists and from human traffickers to money launderer s, the United States
has nearly 8,000 economic sanctions in place, and the list is growing. Particularly in the post-9/11 era, the U.S.
government has leveraged the global preeminence of the U.S. dollar to turn off spigots of
funding for sinister activities and unwanted behaviors by state actors.
Among additional sanctions against Iran, Russia and Venezuela , The Trump administration earlier this month tightened travel
restrictions to Cuba stating, “Cuba continues to play a destabilizing role in the Western Hemisphere…these actions will help to keep U.S. dollars out of
the hands of Cuban military, intelligence, and security services.”
The muscle behind an array of U.S. financial sanctions derives from the reach and power of the U.S. dollar as the “lead
currency” in the global economy. This status makes it possible to not only prevent U.S. individuals and companies from doing business directly with a
sanctioned entity, it makes it risky to do business with third-country companies that do business with

sanctioned entities. Acutely aware of their vulnerability, non-U.S. companies also frequently take
steps to minimize their exposure to possible violations of U.S. sanctions lest they jeopardize their access to the U.S.
financial system.
 EX -- Impact -- NoKo War
Sanctions maintain NoKo peace
Martinez 19' ( Feb.28, 2019 , Luis Martinez is a producer for ABC News based in the
Washington, D.C. bureau. Martinez covers military and national security issues for ABC News at
the Pentagon, "Why are US and UN sanctions on North Korea critical to denuclearization
talks?"https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-sanctions-north-korea-critical-denuclearization-
talks/story?id=61389541
In the last dozen years, the United Nations and the United States have increasingly used sanctions to further isolate
the rogue nation of North Korea and U.S. officials have said the Trump administration’s “maximum
pressure” to enforce existing sanctions was key in pushing North Korea towards denuclearization talks with the
United States.
Earlier Thursday, President Donald Trump attributed
the collapse of the summit with North Korea’s leader
to Kim Jong Un's demand that the U.S. lift all sanctions before Pyongyang would begin any
denuclearization.
"Basically, they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn’t do that," Trump said at a news conference after the
talks fell apart.
(MORE: US-North Korea summit with President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un cut short in Vietnam)
Trump explained that North Korea requested a total lifting of sanctions in return for the closure of the Yongbyon nuclear processing facility. But Trump
said the U.S. wanted the closure of additional nuclear production facilities that North Korea has used to develop its arsenal of several dozen nuclear
weapons.
North Korea disputed Trump's account.
“What we proposed was not the removal of all sanctions, but the partial removal,” said North Korea's Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho at a late-night news
conference in Hanoi, Vietnam.
“We proposed to remove sanctions from five of 11 U.N. sanctions resolutions, specifically ones that impede livelihood of our people.”
Ever since North Korea tested its first nuclear device in 2006, the United Nations has authorized
nearly a dozen international sanctions targeting North Korea’s access to any equipment that could be
used for the development of its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

The United Nations sanctions have

also targeted North Korea’s economy by restricting the importation of
key resources and the export of coal, seafood, textiles, fishing rights and other raw materials.
Ukraine Civil War
 1NC
Petrodollar key to containing civil crisis in Ukraine - heightened tensions
guarantee Russia attack
Synder 14' (May 13,2014 Micheal , "De-Dollarization: Russia Is On The Verge Of Dealing A
Massive Blow To The Petrodollar" , theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/de-dollarization-
russia-is-on-the-verge-of-dealing-a-massive-blow-to-the-petrodollar)
So why is the petrodollar so important?
Well, it creates a tremendous amount of demand for the U.S. dollar all over the globe . Since
everyone has needed it to trade with one another, that has created an endless global appetite for the currency. That has kept the
value of the dollar artificially high, and it has enabled us to import trillions of dollars of super cheap products from other countries. If
other nations stopped using the dollar to trade with one another, the value of the dollar would plummet dramatically and we would
have to pay much, much more for the trinkets that we buy at the dollar store and Wal-Mart.
In addition, since the U.S.
dollar is essentially the de facto global currency, this has also increased
demand for our debt. Major exporting nations such as China and Saudi Arabia end up with giant piles of our dollars. Instead
of just letting them sit there and do nothing, those nations often reinvest their dollars into securities that can rapidly be changed
back into dollars if needed. One of the most popular ways to do this has been to invest those dollars in U.S. Treasuries. This has
driven down interest rates on U.S. debt over the years and has enabled the U.S. government to borrow trillions upon trillions of
dollars for next to nothing.
But if the rest of the world starts moving away from the U.S. dollar , all of this could change.
In order for our current standard of living to continue, it is absolutely imperative that everyone else around the globe continues to
use our currency.
So if Russia really does pull the trigger on a “de-dollarization ” strategy, that would be huge – especially if the
rest of the planet started following their lead.
The U.S. economy is already teetering on the brink of another major downturn , and there are a whole
host of indications that big trouble is on the horizon. For much more on this, please see the article that I posted on Monday entitled
“If Economic Cycle Theorists Are Correct, 2015 To 2020 Will Be Pure Hell For The United States“.
Just about the last thing that we need right now is for our petrodollar monopoly to be
threatened.
It would be nice if things would calm down in Ukraine and the relationship between the United States and Russia
could go back to normal.
Sadly, that does not appear likely any time soon.
In fact, the Ukrainian government has already admitted that “we are essentially at war“, and on Tuesday six
Ukrainian soldiers were killed and eight were wounded in a convoy attack in eastern Ukraine.
The regions in eastern Ukraine that have just declared independence have given the government
in Kiev until Wednesday to pull their forces out of eastern Ukraine or else face war.
If a full blown civil war does erupt in Ukraine , it is going to take this crisis to a completely new
level.
Unfortunately, most Americans are incredibly apathetic at this point and know very little about what is going on.
But in the end, this could have dramatic implications for all of us.
 Impact - Additional - Generic
Heightened Ukraine tensions cause nuclear war and undermine
international coop on climate change, terrorism, cyber, and nuclear prolif.
Independently, increases Chinese aggression
Legvold 14 [Robert Legvold is Marshall D. Shulman Professor Emeritus at Columbia University.
Managing the New Cold War. 2014. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-
states/2014-06-16/managing-new-cold-war]
That hope is now gone. The crisis in Ukraine has pushed the two sides over a cliff and into a new
relationship, one not softened by the ambiguity that defined the last decade of the post–Cold War period, when each party
viewed the other as neither friend nor foe.Russia and the West are now adversaries.
Although this new Cold War will be fundamentally different from the original, it will still be immensely
damaging. Unlike the original, the new one won’t encompass the entire global system. The world is no longer bipolar, and
significant regions and key players, such as China and India, will avoid being drawn in. In addition, the new conflict will not pit one
“ism” against another, nor will it likely unfold under the permanent threat of nuclear Armageddon. Yet the new Cold War will affect
nearly every important dimension of the international system, and Putin’s emphasis on Russia’s alienation from contemporary
Western cultural values will add to the estrangement. Finally, were a security crisis in the center of Europe to
escalate, the danger of nuclear war could quickly return.
For both Moscow and Washington, then, the top priority must be to contain the conflict, ensuring that it ends up
being as short and as shallow as possible. To achieve that goal, both sides must carefully study the lessons of the original Cold War.
During that conflict, the two sides, despite their bitter rivalry, were eventually able to develop a variety of mechanisms for reducing
tensions and containing risks. By the 1970s, U.S. and Russian leaders had come to see managing the contest and focusing on areas of
cooperation, especially nuclear arms control, as their principal tasks. Without discounting the fundamental differences that set them
at odds, leaders on both sides embraced the wisdom of engaging, rather than isolating, the other. Toward the end of the original
Cold War, the earnest, albeit fumbling, efforts of U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to understand
what drove each other greatly influenced the final outcome. Today, as leaders in Moscow and Washington move in the other
direction, they might pause and reflect on how the wisest among their predecessors approached the original Cold War.
THE BIG CHILL
For all the differences between the two periods, the new Cold War will share many of its predecessor’s features. First, Russian
and Western leaders have already begun framing the standoff in unforgiving terms -- much as
their predecessors did at the start of the first Cold War, most famously with Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin’s
February 1946 preelection speech and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech a month later. This past March,
for example, Putin defended Russia’s annexation of Crimea by saying that Washington and its European allies were guided by “the
rule of the gun” rather than international law and were convinced that their “exceptionalism” allowed them to unlawfully use force
against sovereign states, “building coalitions based on the principle, ‘If you are not with us, you are against us.’” In May, Alexander
Vershbow, the deputy secretary-general of NATO, asserted that Russia should now be considered “more of an adversary than a
partner.”
Second, as in the early phases of the original Cold War, each side sees the conflict as a result solely of the actions -- or even the nature -- of the other. Neither pays attention to the complicated interactions that brought relations to their present low. This
preoccupation with pinning fault on the other side recalls attitudes during the late 1950s and early 1960s, when each side viewed the other as inherently alien. Only after surviving the perils of the Berlin crisis of 1958–61 and the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 did the
Americans and the Soviets step back and consider where their interests converged. Over the next ten years, they negotiated three major arms control agreements: the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and the first Strategic Arms
Limitation Talks (SALT I).
Third, as during much of the original Cold War, neither side now expects much from the relationship. Isolated moments of cooperation might emerge when the two sides’ interests on specific issues happen to coincide. But neither believes it feasible to pursue
cooperation across a broad front with the aim of changing the nature of the relationship overall. Nor does either camp seem willing to take the first step in that direction.
Fourth, to punish Moscow and to signal the price it will pay for further aggression, Washington has resorted to a series of Cold War–style reprisals. Beginning in March, it put military-to-military activities with Russia on hold and ended missile defense negotiations.
The Obama administration has also banned the export to Russia of civilian technology with potential military applications, suspended cooperation with Russia on civilian nuclear energy projects, cut off NASA’s contacts with its Russian counterpart, and denied
Russian specialists access to the laboratories of the U.S. Department of Energy. Many of these measures will likely remain in place after the Ukraine crisis ends. And even those that are lifted will leave a corrosive residue.
Fifth, and most serious, just as the confrontation over security in the heart of Europe constituted the epicenter of the original Cold War, renewed uncertainty over central and eastern Europe’s stability will drive this one as well. Beginning in the 1990s, NATO’s
expansion into much of eastern Europe, including the Baltic states, moved Europe’s political-military border to the edges of the former Soviet Union. NATO enlargement also transformed Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine into the new “lands in between,” successors to
Poland and the parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that the great powers fought over, with tragic results, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Today, as Moscow fortifies its Western Military District, a key military command, and NATO refocuses on Russia,
the military standoff over continental Europe, which took two decades to dismantle, will swiftly be reconstituted on Europe’s eastern edge.
RED ZONE
Some might assume that the new Cold War, although undesirable, won’t matter nearly as much as the last one did, especially since modern Russia presents a mere shadow of the threat once posed by the Soviet Union. It is true, of course, that the United States
enjoys massive material advantages over its adversary: its economy is around eight times as large as Russia’s, and its military budget is seven times as large. Moreover, the magnitude of the other challenges Washington faces, from turbulence in the Middle East to
rising tensions in the Asia-Pacific, might make a collapse of Russia’s relations with the United States and most of Europe seem relatively unimportant.

But todoubt the likelihood or significance of a prolonged confrontation would

be deeply misguided. In truth, if Russia and the United States approach each other in
starkly adversarial terms, the conflict will badlywarp the foreign policies of
both countries, damage virtually every important dimension of international politics,
and divert attention and resources from the major security challenges of the new century.
Consider Washington’s position in the Asia-Pacific, toward which it has for several years now intended to rebalance its diplomatic
and military resources. Recent events
in Ukraine have already caused Tokyo to
fear that Washington’s new focus on Europe will diminish its commitment to Asia -- and, more
specifically, its commitment to helping Japan  ward off a rising China. Japanese
leaders even worry that Obama’s relatively mild response to Moscow’s annexation of
Crimea foreshadows how Washington would react if Beijing seized the
disputed Senkaku Islands (known in China as the Diaoyu Islands), in the East China Sea. Moreover, a belligerent
Russia will have every incentive to hinder, rather than help, the United States’ efforts to
manage the delicate task of deterring Chinese aggression while widening the sphere of U.S.-Chinese
cooperation. Similarly, at a time when Washington needs Russian cooperation to address new
sources of global disorder, Moscow will instead step aside, impairing U.S. efforts to deal
with terrorism, climate change, nuclear proliferation, and cyberwarfare.
The pressure to reorient U.S. defense planning to meet what many members of the U.S. Congress and many of Washington’s eastern European allies see as a revived Russian
military threat will complicate the Pentagon’s effort to save money by modernizing and downsizing. The U.S. military, which is currently focused on counterterrorism and
securing access to the seas surrounding China, will now have to beef up its capabilities to fight a ground war in Europe.
The new Cold War with the United States and Europe will hurt Russia even more, especially because Moscow is much more dependent on the West than vice versa, in at least
one critical respect. To diversify its resource-dependent economy and modernize its aging, Soviet-era infrastructure, Russia has counted on an inflow of Western capital and
technology. To the degree that this option is lost, Moscow will be forced to become vastly more dependent either on its relationship with Beijing -- in which it is a distinctly
junior partner -- or on scattered partnerships with countries that do not offer anything resembling the resources of the United States and Europe.
Only four years ago, after the global financial crisis had laid bare the weakness of the Russian economy, then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev argued that the country sorely
needed “special alliances for modernization” with the United States and the countries of the EU. But now, as the crisis in Russia’s relations with those countries deepens, Russia
is already feeling the crunch, as capital is fleeing the country, its credit markets are shrinking, and its economy will soon enter a recession.
Such economic hardship may prompt Russian leaders to preemptively clamp down on domestic dissent even harder than they already have to avert potential social unrest at
home, which would mean a level of repression that could backfire and at some point produce the very kind of widespread opposition the Kremlin fears. Meanwhile, Russia’s
poisoned relations with the United States and its European allies might well lead such Russian partners as Armenia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan -- all of which are crucial to Russia’s
plans for a Eurasian economic union and a stronger Collective Security Treaty Organization -- to subtly distance themselves from Moscow for fear of tainting their own
relationships with the Western powers.
The new confrontation with the West will also force Russia to stretch its military resources thin. That will leave Moscow poorly equipped to handle a host of other security
challenges, such as violence in the northern Caucasus and instability in Central Asia, the latter of which is compounded by the unpredictable futures facing Afghanistan and
Pakistan. Russia must also defend its vast border with China and prepare for a potential conflict between North and South Korea.
PRESSURE POINTS
The collapse of Russia’s relations with the West will not only distort U.S., European, and Russian foreign policy but also inflict serious
harm on a broad array of international issues. What still remains of the arms control regime that took Russia and the United States
years to build will now largely come undone. The new Cold War has eliminated any chance that Moscow and Washington will
resolve their differences over missile defense, a Russian precondition for further strategic arms control agreements. Instead, the
two sides will likely start developing new and potentially destabilizing technologies,
including advanced precision-guided conventional weapons and cyberwarfare tools.
Meanwhile, the European component of the U.S. missile defense program will now likely take on a specifically anti-Russian character, particularly because the Obama
administration reportedly believes that Russia has violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. And it is unlikely that Moscow and Washington will be able to
agree on how to place limits on the deployment of major weapons systems in Europe. The new Cold War has also dashed any hopes of strengthening other basic agreements,
such as the 1992 Treaty on Open Skies, which regulates unarmed aerial surveillance flights.
Geostrategic calculations will now also assume a far more dominant role in U.S.-Russian energy relations. Each side will attempt to use the oil and gas trade to gain leverage over
the other and minimize its own vulnerability. In the Arctic, the chances for U.S.-Russian cooperation in developing that region’s vast hydrocarbon reserves will surely shrink.
More broadly, the new Cold War will set back international efforts to deal with the impact of climate change on the Arctic -- an issue on which U.S.-Russian relations have been
surprisingly cooperative.
One of the most successful but underappreciated aspects of recent U.S.-Russian relations has been the progress made by the 20 working groups of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral
Presidential Commission, which was established in 2009 to facilitate high-level cooperation on a range of policies, from prison reform and military education to civilian
emergencies and counterterrorism. It seems unlikely that such cooperation will continue, much less improve, during the new Cold War. Moscow and Washington will also
struggle to align their positions on key matters of global governance, including the much-needed reforms of the UN, the International Monetary Fund, and the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe. Washington is now focused on excluding Russia where possible (from the G-8, for example) and circumscribing Russia’s role elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Moscow will work harder than before to supplant U.S. and European influence in these institutions.

Finally, should
one or more of the long-simmering conflicts in the post-Soviet
region again explode, the chances that Russia and the United States would act
together to contain the violence seem close to zero. Instead, were Nagorno-Karabakh,
in Azerbaijan, or Transnistria, in Moldova, to blow up, Moscow and Washington would both be
far more likely to focus on counteracting what they each saw as the malevolent role of  the
other.
 EX - Russia Ukraine Attack
Ukraine civil war leads to Russia lashout
Amadeo 6/25/19 Kimberly Amadeo has 20 years senior-level corporate experience in economic analysis and business strategy.
She received an M.S. in Management from the Sloan School of Business at M.I.T.Kimberly is the U.S. Economy expert for The
Balance, and has been writing for Dotdash/About.com since 2006. She covers economic and business news, and explains how the
economy affects you "Ukraine Crisis, Summary And Explanantion" https://www.thebalance.com/ukraine-crisis-summary-and-
explanation-3970462
The Ukraine crisis is a power struggle between factions within Ukraine. One wants to align with the European Union and the other with Russia. Ukraine had been an important contributor to the Soviet Union's economy between 1920 and 1991. The current crisis
erupted on June 7, 2014, pro-West president Petro Poroshenko replaced pro-Russia president Viktor Yanukovych. On September 12, 2014, Ukraine approved a trade deal with the EU that removed export tariffs. It agreed to delay its implementation a year to avoid
Russian energy sanctions and even attacks. Ukraine President Poroshenko wanted to maintain the cease-fire. The current crisis erupted in March 2014, when Russian special forces occupied Ukraine's Crimean peninsula. Russia claimed it was protecting its port access
to the Black Sea. Russian President Vladimir Putin Ukraine had planned to develop Crimea's natural gas reserves in two years in a partnership with U.S. companies. If Ukraine had accomplished this, Russia would have lost one of its largest customers. Between 2014
and 2018, a military conflict between Ukrainian soldiers and Russian-backed separatists has continued in eastern Ukraine. More than 10,000 people have been killed. On November 25, 2018, Russian ships attacked and boarded three Ukrainian vessels in the Crimean
port of Azov near the Black Sea. It placed a freighter to block the port. It said Ukraine has violated Russian waters. The two sides signed an agreement in 2003 to guarantee free passage through the strait. In recent months, they've been harassing each other’s ships.
Critics at the United Nations Security Council meeting said Russia's attack was a violation under international law. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization increased its military presence in the area. Putin's attack responded to the February 23 overthrow of his ally
Viktor Yanukovych. The pro-West faction of Ukraine's Parliament took over the government. The crisis occurred because Yanukovych mismanaged the budget. He forced Ukraine to ask for financial help. It appealed to the EU, then Russia. The political unrest occurred
at this point. Those who wanted to be closer to the EU objected when that solution was abandoned. Russia's military strike supported Yanukovych's return to Kiev and closer ties to Russia. In April 2014, Russia supported local rebels who took over city halls and
police stations throughout eastern Ukraine. That area is home to ethnic Russians who don't want to be part of the EU. Those Russians were moved there 50 years ago by Joseph Stalin, who intended to strengthen the Soviet Republic's hold on the area. Earlier that
month, NATO revealed satellite photos showing Russia's invasion of Ukraine's eastern border. An EU emergency meeting added further sanctions on Russia's oil and banking sectors. That occurred shortly after Russia sent a convoy of trucks over the border. They
were bearing aid to Ukraine's eastern cities, held by pro-Russian rebels. Several of those trucks entered without approval. Ukraine had also destroyed a convoy of Russian military vehicles. They were bringing arms to the rebels. It was the first time that Ukraine
attacked Russian forces directly. A few days later, Ukraine reported that several military vehicles were near the Russian border at the Crimean port of Azov. It claimed that Russia was creating a second front for the rebels. Russia also wanted land access through

southern Ukraine. It wanted a shorter route to Crimea. In July, Russia built up its military force on the border. There were 19,000 to 21,000 troops, 14 advanced surface-to-air missile units, and 30 artillery batteries. It was a battle-ready force that could
launch an attack into eastern Ukraine at a moment's notice. Russiahad already launched rockets across the
border in support of Ukrainian rebels. Putin's standoff over Ukraine boosted his popularity rating
in Russia to 80 percent. To maintain this popularity, he will continue to hold onto Ukraine
despite the cost. For example, it would cost Russia more than $20 billion through 2020 to integrate Crimea. Putin knows that
NATO won't protect Ukraine since it is not a member. That emboldens him to continue to attack. Ukraine had been the
second-most important contributor to the former Soviet Union's economy . It provided one-fourth of Soviet agricultural output.
It supplied heavy industrial equipment and raw materials to industrial sites throughout the former USSR. On July 29, 2014, the United States and the EU extended economic sanctions against Russia. They wanted to convince Putin to stop supporting those in eastern
Ukraine who want to break up the country. The United States had proof that Russia supplied separatists that shot down a Malaysia Airlines commercial jet over eastern Ukraine on July 17, killing 298 people. The sanctions severely limit five out of the six major
Russian banks' ability to obtain medium and long-term financing from Europe. The United States also restricted technology exports to Russia's deep-water Arctic offshore or shale oil production. Russia had already been ousted from the Group of Eight. As a result of
U.S. sanctions, British Petroleum was worried about its profits. Bank of America cut its exposure to Russia by 40 percent. Boeing and United Technologies started hoarding titanium. Russia's VSMPO is the world's largest producer of this rare metal. In response, Russia
banned imports of U.S. and European foods for one year. This included $300 million of U.S. poultry products. After the sanctions, foreign direct investment in Russia dropped by $75 billion. That's roughly 4 percent of the country's gross domestic product. Its stock
market plummeted 20 percent. Its currency, the ruble, fell 50 percent. To head off inflation, Russia's central bank raised interest rates. The sanctions created a recession in Russia. The International Monetary Fund cut its 2014 growth forecast for Russia from 3.8
percent to 0.2 percent. Even though Putin continues to be popular at home, these sanctions are hurting the country's economy. Russia is one of the emerging markets that suffered a currency meltdown in 2014. Forex traders abandoned these markets when the
Federal Reserve began tapering its quantitative easing program. That reduced credit around the world. Russia waged wars in Chechnya in the early 2000s. Putin annexed Ossetia in Georgia in 2008, and the Western world didn't really intervene. He also successfully
launched a cyber-attack on Estonia. But Ukraine is larger and borders the EU directly. Many small countries bordering Russia worried that if Ukraine falls, they would be next. The EU is unlikely to defend them since it depends on Russia for half of its gas. Many
European businesses have profitable operations in Russia. Others sympathize with Putin, who is defending Russia's borders from encroachment by NATO. Annexation of Crimea worries 260,000 Muslim Tatars. They were subjected to ethnic cleansing during the
Soviet rule. They were forced to move to Central Asia, where half of them died. Crimean Tatars peacefully supported Ukraine's Orange Revolution.
 AT No Russia War
Russia is ready to fight a nuclear war and will
Goble 3/9/19 Paul Goble is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia. He has served as director of
research and publications at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy, vice dean for the social sciences and humanities at Audentes
University in Tallinn, and a senior research associate at the EuroCollege of the University of Tartu in Estonia. "Putin Is Preparing To
Fight And Win A Limited Nuclear WAr Against The West, Skobov Says"euromaidanpress.com/2019/03/09/putin-is-preparing-to-
fight-and-win-a-limited-nuclear-war-against-the-west-skobov-says/

Putin is preparing to fight and win a limited nuclear war, convinced that “the effete West will refuse to
escalate” in response lest that lead to a nuclear Armageddon that will destroy both the Russian Federation and the West, according to
Moscow commentator Aleksandr Skobov. The Cold War doctrine was based on the assumption that neither super power would ever
use nuclear weapons for offense but only in defense and that both would be prepared to escalate if the other acted first, an assumption
that provided less certainty that war could be avoided than many now believe, Skobov says. On the one hand, each side had developed
plans for using tactical and then strategic weapons if the other side used them. And on the other, the commentator continues, both had
to continue to invest in ever more apocalyptic weapons as the last line of defense of what each viewed as its civilizational model.
According to Skobov, “both sides were certain of the superiority of their own social system and in the eventual collapse of the social
system of their opponent in a global defeat in the historical competition.” In essence, “both sides considered a global military clash
with their historical opponents as practically inevitable.” Moreover, both sides concluded that they might be pushed to the use of
nuclear weapons if the use of conventional ones was not allowing them to win out .
NATO doctrine held that in the
event of a Soviet tank thrust into Europe, the western alliance would have to use tactical
nuclear weapons. “In the USSR,” Skobov continues, “the doctrine of ‘a responsive nuclear strike’ was adopted
officially, but in fact, the General Staff considered a sufficient basis for a [Soviet] nuclear strike only the possibility that the
first strike might be inflicted by [the USSR’s] opponents.” And because neither side could be certain what might happen, each was
prepared to escalate in response, something that both sides recognized and that was ultimately the reason that neither side used those
weapons against the other lest its civilizational model be destroyed along with the world. “Until Gorbachev’s perestroika,” Skobov
says, “all attempts not only to begin the process of disarmament or even to freeze the number of weapons at a certain level turned out
to be hopeless” as a result. “All ‘pre-perestroika’ Soviet-American treaties were only agreements about reducing the tempo of the
building of arms.” The world was thus drifting toward a nuclear war, a horrific outcome that was prevented only by the decision of the
Soviet leadership under Gorbachev to reject its global political goals, its ideology, its faith in the supremacy of its social system, and
its efforts to impose that system on others by defeating its opponent. By refusing to view the West as an inevitable enemy, the Soviet
leadership made possible arms control deals that reduced the number of nuclear weapons of the two sides by 80 percent. “Russian
imperialists call this a geopolitical capitulation, but the alternative to it was nuclear war,” Skobov argues. But now what Gorbachev
did is being reversed. Putin’s “organized criminal group” even though it has not articulated an ideology views itself as “’the
elect of history,’ called upon to send into the trash heap all this ‘Western project’ with its ‘false democracy,’ ‘false’ humanism,
and ‘false’ human rights.” This is not “a return to Soviet ideology,” Skobov insists. “The Soviet empire claimed that namely it was
the true legal heir of the Renaissance-Enlightenment project and the heir of 1789 which proclaimed ‘freedom, equality, and
brotherhood.’” The Putinists, in contrast, “are convinced that there are no ‘true’ human rights and that democracy doesn’t exist in
nature.” For Putin and his acolytes, “there is only loot and crude force and the eternal universal laws of criminal groups.” It “doesn’t
seek to be the heir of 1789: it rejects that inheritance just as Hitler did.” And that points up something else: “the ideological gap
separating the Putin empire and the West is much deeper than the one which divided the West and the Soviet empire.” Putin’s
“organized criminal group” may not believe that Western elites have any moral limitations, “but it cannot but understand that NATO
does not have a single reason in the event of a military conflict to use nuclear weapons first.” That is because today, NATO has
superiority over Russia “in other kinds of arms.” Equally, the Putin people “cannot but know” that neither side has an effective
defense against strategic nuclear missiles “and in the coming decades won’t” either. To ensure that the principles of mutually assured
destruction continue to work as a constraint, Skobov says, “no new “super weapons” are needed. Then, why is Putin talking about
them? In fact,
he isn’t talking about strategic weapons that could be used to bring on
Armageddon but rather precisely targeted ones that could serve as the weapon of choice
for “a limited nuclear strike, including a first strike” rather than in response to the actions of the West. Putin
is “certainly not preparing for complete mutual destruction,” Skobov says. “He is preparing for a limited nuclear war which he
hopes to win.” His hopes rest on his conviction that the West now will not respond to a Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons
by escalating but by doing everything possible to de-escalate. As in the first Cold War, the commentator continues, “the world’s
slide toward a nuclear catastrophe can be stopped only by Russia turning away from its confrontation with the West” based on
Moscow’s belief that its system is superior and the West’s is rotting from within because it is not. But tragically, “today there are no
forces within the country capable of turning Russia” in a different direction. And the world is rapidly running out of time. “Therefore,”
Skobov says, “the first order of business is the formation of a broad international anti-Putin coalition, which recognizes the threat
coming from the Kremlin and is ready to respond to Putin’s strike.”
U.S. Heg
 1NC
Maintaining the dollar’s status is key to overall hegemony—foreign policy
leverage and military spending.
Thomas COSTIGAN ET AL. 17. **Instructor, Department of Finance, University of Akron.
**Drew Cottle, Senior Lecturer, Western City University. **Angela Keys, Thomas University.
“The US Dollar as the Global Reserve Currency: Implications for US Hegemony.” World Review of
Political Economy 8(1): 104-22. Emory Libraries.
US hegemony has been the subject of study from many varied perspectives in different historical contexts. Anderson (2013), for
example, has argued that US hegemony rose to cover the planet from the earliest years of US history. He contends that the US
imperium had a long prehistory stretching back to its founding. In the post-Cold War era, Johnson (2004, 151) has argued that a new
form of US hegemony has emerged where US military bases constitute an "empire of bases." In this article, we argue that the
role
of the US dollar as the global reserve currency should be seen as central to the functioning
of US hegemony . The benefits the United States has derived from the dollar's reserve currency
status are crucial , for instance, to the maintenance of military bases and other aspects of US
hegemonic power. Robert Keohane, for example, has done considerable work on how US hegemony is
structurally comprised . In After Hegemony (2005), first published in 1984, Keohane argued that cooperation among
capitalist powers would continue even without a single hegemon. Keohane's study lacks significant explanation of the role of reserve
currencies or financial markets in how cooperation occurs between state actors. Susan Strange (1987) critiques hegemonic stability
theory. Strange argues that a critical reason for hegemonic change "in the great game of states" "is primarily economic, not political"
(Strange 1987, 553). While Strange does consider the role of the US dollar and its reserve status, it is relegated to third position in a
list of structural reasons for the conditions that give rise to US hegemony. In contrast, we argue that the
dollar and its
reserve status is the most fundamental reason that the United States is a hegemonic power .
Emmanuel Wallerstein's (1991) study focuses on the changing worlds system in the 1980s. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the
evolution of the world system in the context of a declining US hegemony are seen as major changes to the capitalist world economy.
Absent from Wallerstein's (1991) study is any analysis of the dollar and its reserve function in how hegemony is constructed.
Critical contributions have been made by Michael Hudson and Henry C.K. Liu to scholarship on the US dollar with regard to US
hegemony. Hudson (2003) has presented a critical history of the US dollar and how the political power attained
through the selection of the dollar as the global reserve currency has served the interests of
the United States. However, this study was published prior to the financial crash of 2008. The global financial crisis (GFC) has had a
large impact on the debates surrounding whether the dollar can be maintained in the face of this disruption (Overholt et al. 2015).
Furthermore, since Hudson's (2003) study was published, there have been several major developments in the realm of political
economy that concern the dollar and its continued reserve status. First, the increasing use of the Yuan in bilateral
trade between Russian and China, particularly for hydrocarbon payments, has the potential to undermine US
hegemony by creating a system outside the control of the US banking system, the China International Payments System (CIPS)
(Koneig 2015). Another critical feature which occurred after Hudson (2003) was the
creation of the Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Officially the bank is intended to meet the infrastructure investment needs of the
Asian region and will be used to fund "The New Silk Road" project for example. However, this institution will be under the direction
of the Chinese in concert with multilateral partners. These developments indicate
a challenge to a US-centric world
system and raise the possibility of a regional sphere of influence dominated by Russia and
China in East and particularly Central Asia. This evolution of Russian Chinese cooperation is a direct threat to the
hegemony of the United States in Central Asia as Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard (1997) theorised could happen. Liu
(2002) has analysed the role of the dollar in the operations of US hegemony. Liu contends that since Nixon abandoned the gold
standard in 1971, the US dollar has become a "global monetary instrument that only the United States can produce by fiat."
According to Liu, the rest of the world produces goods, and the United States produces dollars that are required to purchase these
goods, particularly oil. As
US dollars are needed to facilitate global trade , this consequently
positions the United States at the centre of a global trading system in which it is the dominant
power. Liu (2002) asserts the contention that the unique role the dollar occupies allows the United States to
manipulate the currency at will and that China must live with the consequences (349). Liu and
Deng's (2012) study identifies a more recent contention between the US dollar and the Chinese RMB centred on the sensitive issue
of currency devaluation. However, little theoretical interpretation is given to how this is made possible. Here we fill this gap by
positing that a world systems analysis is the best way of understanding the interconnected relationship between the dollar and
other currencies.
Prasad (2014) has argued that despite the difficulties that the US dollar and the US economy confront, the role of the US dollar in
international finance through its reserve function will endure for the foreseeable future. Prasad emphasises the strengthening of the
dollar since the GFC and asserts that the existing superiority of Western legal and financial institutions make the role of the dollar
secure. Prasad notes that it has long been a source of contention that holders
of US Treasury bonds are, in effect,
subsidising US deficit spending and the standard of living of Americans through their purchase
of US debt. This phenomenon has been come to be known as the "exorbitant privilege" (Canzoneri et al. 2013). Nonetheless, as
the United States' NIC has suggested,
Despite recent inflows into dollar assets and the appreciation of the dollar, the dollar could
lose its status as an unparalleled global reserve currency by 2025 , and become a first among
equals in a market basket of currencies. This may force the US to consider more carefully how the conduct of its
foreign policy affects the dollar. Without a steady source of external demand for dollars, US foreign policy actions might
bring exposure to currency shock and higher interest rates for Americans . (NIC 2008, 12)
The dollar and its position as the global reserve currency are fundamental to the US economy
and are, as a consequence, critical to the funding of both US domestic and foreign policies . As financial
transactions can be conducted instantly across the globe, it has been suggested that "a nation's currency security is
even more critical than energy security" (Engdahl 2014, 10). Rickards (2011) has examined the geo-strategic and
defence posture that the United States maintains in relation to the dollar, exploring the impact future financial
attacks may have on the United States' geo-strategic rivalry with other nations. Rickards (2011, 6)
highlights the staging of simulated games on this subject, which were held at the Applied Physics laboratory near Washington in
conjunction with the Department of Defence in September 2008. The purpose of the games was to "examine the impact of global
financial activities on national security issues" (Rickards 2011, 6). Rickards (2011, 11) argues that such an attack on the
United States would undermine confidence in the dollar and emphasises the existence of US presidential powers
which permit the freezing of accounts that attempt to disrupt markets in this way.
Eichengreen (2011) has offered a different view on the dollar's status globally, reasoning that in the future it is likely that there will
be a basket of currencies in operation within the world economy. Noting that there is an historical precedent for multiple reserve
currencies, Eichengreen (2011) contends, nonetheless, that reports of the dollar's imminent demise as the global reserve currency
are premature, if not entirely unfounded. However, a question must be raised as to whether the United States would allow the
world economy to abandon the dollar as the global reserve, given the potential ramifications such a move would have for the US
economy and for US hegemony globally.
5.The Dollar and US Hegemony: A World-Systems Analysis Perspective
Immanuel Wallerstein's conception of World-Systems Analysis has provided a theoretical perspective that is key to the investigation
of the US dollar's significance as the global reserve currency. Wallerstein (2011) has asserted that the world system is divided into
core, semi-peripheral and peripheral states. We contend that the
US dollar as the global reserve currency is an
instrument that has been critical to the establishment of the U nited States as the ultimate
metropole power at the core of this world system.
The strategizing undertaken by planners from the CFR and the US State Department at the beginning of World War II was
fundamental to the installation of the United States at the core of the post-war world system. The economic consequences of the
war for European nations, particularly Britain, provided a context for the United States to assume a pivotal role in the post-war era.
Beeson and Higgott (2005) have argued that, after World War II, the United States became the pre-eminent global power by
positioning itself, "at the centre of a dense web of 'hub and spokes' security relationships." As Beeson and Higgott (2005) have
explained, the United States also created
an international political and economic framework
conducive to its interests, with the multilateral institutions necessary to maintain them .
Nonetheless, it was the selection of the United States' currency as the global reserve which ensured
that the United States was at the centre of the world economy in the post-war period. The US dollar
became the essential means of international trade between core, semi-periphery and
periphery states following the end of World War II.
Wallerstein (2006) has provided an analysis of US hegemony from the end of World War II to the beginning of the twenty-first
century. He contends that an 80-year battle was waged between the United States and Germany to determine who would succeed
Britain as the new world hegemon. Wallerstein's analysis of US power in relation to the world system identified three distinct
periods, the first of which commenced when Allied victory in World War II established a period of US global hegemony that endured
until 1970. The second period, from 1970 to 2001, was when US hegemony entered into decline. The third phase began with the
unilateralist policies of President George W. Bush. These policies were devised to slow down and reverse the decline in US
hegemony. In practice, Wallerstein asserts, they accelerated US hegemonic decline. Like Wallerstein, Golub (2004) has emphasised
that the unilateralist approach adopted by the Bush administration has led to a serious decline in the international influence of the
United States.
From the end of World War II until the present, the United States has encountered challenges to its position as the global hegemonic
power. The United States has undergone a transformation economically and industrially, and, as a manufacturer and exporter of
goods, the United States has certainly declined. Although
other aspects of US hegemonic influence have
changed, the status of the US dollar as the global reserve currency has not yet been
successfully challenged. The power and influence of the US dollar as the global reserve is often
overlooked as a hegemonic instrument, particularly as there are more obvious expressions of
US hegemonic power, such as the presence of US military bases on every continent except Antarctica. As an enduring
feature of US hegemony that continues to link the world economy, the US dollar as the global
reserve currency can be viewed, potentially, as the most vital element of US hegemony.
6.Conclusion: Future Challenges to the Dollar's Status as the Global Reserve Currency
One potential challenge to the US dollar's future as the global reserve currency, identified by economist Robert Triffin, has come to
be known as the "Triffin Dilemma" or the "Triffin Paradox." Triffin (1960) argued that the selection of a nation's currency as the
global reserve currency would create problems for that nation in the form of conflicting economic demands. Such a nation would
eventually experience a critical balance of payments problem, particularly in its current account deficit. Triffin criticised the Bretton
Woods monetary system adopted at the end of World War II which established what he interpreted as an irreconcilable economic
paradox for the United States. Whether
the United States will experience a future economic crisis cannot
be known; however, US debt has certainly grown enormously since the end of World War II. The
unrelenting demand for US dollars created by the currency's establishment as the global reserve has enabled the United States to
continue to accrue debt, largely without consequence. As
the current system compels nations to trade in US
dollars, the United States has been free to run large budget deficits and balance of payments
deficits without any apparent impact on the United States (Hudson 2003, xii). However, if the US dollar
was to lose its position as the global reserve currency, the United States would likely experience a
major economic crisis . A critical problem may yet emerge as the US issues more and more of its currency while trying to
maintain the value of the currency (Zhou 2009).
There is a continuing debate among scholars about the potential decline of both the US dollar and US global hegemony, as well as
the implications of the ascendancy of China and cooperation between the BRICS: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (Cox
2012). This debate is broadly divided on the key issue of whether US hegemony is in decline. The declinist view asserts that the rise
of China and other rival powers, in conjunction with the United States' surging national debt, budget deficits and over-extension of
the US military, have placed the United States in an economic position that cannot be sustained, one which will ultimately affect the
US dollar (Layne 2012; Ruppert 2004). That outlook is contested by those who assert that, despite the contemporary problems for
US finances, there is at present neither a single currency nor a basket of currencies that could be readily substituted for the US dollar
as the global reserve currency (Stokes 2014; Prasad 2014; Eichengreen 2011).
The United States has been subjected to international political pressure regarding the US dollar's
global reserve status. The Governor of the Peoples Bank of China, Zhou Xiaochuan, appealed in 2009 for a new
global reserve currency, disassociated from any specific nation, arguing that stronger economic growth would be fostered
and the world economy would be stabilised (Anderlini 2009). The former Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, and the former
Chinese President, Hu Jintao, have made similar demands (Capella 2014). However, without a majority of
nations demanding a new reserve currency, it appears unlikely that this political rhetoric will
affect the dollar-centric world economy .
The establishment of the AIIB has been interpreted by some as a critical challenge to US hegemony, and the US dollar as the global
reserve, from an increasingly powerful China. The AIIB will initially be capitalised with $50 billion, rising eventually to $100 billion,
and will be critical to China's New Silk Road project (Donnan 2015). Strategically, the New Silk Road project will draw into China's
economic orbit the countries of Central and South Asia. Through massive civil engineering projects, the region will be incorporated
into China's expanding economic and security infrastructure (Escobar 2015). However, as Chossudovsky (2015) has explained,
While the creation of BRICS has significant geopolitical implications, both the AIIB as
well as the proposed BRICS Development Bank (NDB) and its Contingency Reserve
Arrangement (CRA) are dollar denominated entities . Unless they are coupled with a
multi-currency system of trade and credit, they do not threaten dollar hegemony .
Quite the opposite, they tend to sustain and extend dollar denominated lending.
(Chossudovsky 2015)
Despite these facts, the United States strongly opposed the formation of the AIIB, and lobbied other nations against joining. Robert
Kahn (2015) of the CFR has argued that the founding of the AIIB reflects China's displeasure at existing institutional arrangements in
Asia, such as the Asian Development Bank led by Japan, as well as the lack of reform at the IMF. While the creation of the AIIB is an
important development, it is not an institution of the same magnitude or influence as, nor is it a rival to, the IMF or the World Bank.
International trading arrangements that avoid using the US currency have emerged as a potential, albeit limited, challenge to the
status of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. The invasion of Iraq, according to W.R. Clark, was motivated by the neo-
conservatives in the Bush administration to stop Saddam Hussain from trading oil in Euros (Clark 2005, 29). Similarly, Swanson
calculates that military action was taken against Col Gaddafi's government in 2011 under the pretext of "humanitarian intervention."
However, it is noted that the Gaddafi government was also preparing to move Libya's oil settlements away from the dollar to a gold-
backed currency (Swanson 2011). Several other Middle Eastern states, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, have attempted to
avoid the US dollar in oil trading, a move that could have an impact upon the demand for US dollars and US Treasury bonds, as well
as long-standing financial and security agreements with the United States (Fisk 2009). Russia,
China and Iran have
sought to substitute their own currencies, in place of the US dollar, in some bilateral and
multilateral trade arrangements, in part to mitigate the imposition of sanctions (Durden 2014).
In September 2015, the Russian government began drafting a bill that would eliminate the US dollar from trade between the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). This plan emerged in the context of continuing political tensions between the United
States and Russia in relation to the Ukraine crisis. By avoiding the US dollar in regional trade, President Vladimir Putin believed
that Russia would be less susceptible to sanctions imposed by the United States (Russia Today 2015).
President Putin ordered an alternate payment system to be created, one which does not use the US dollar (Pascali 2014).
Although not a direct challenge to the US dollar's global reserve currency status, the
substitution of other currencies
for the dollar in international trade could have an impact upon the US economy . Bilateral trade
between Russia and China may be increasingly important within the world economy of the future. Major energy deals, such as the
new China-Russia gas pipeline which will supply Russian gas to China for the next 30 years, will not be traded in US dollars (Pizzi
2014). This
expanding bilateral energy trade between China and Russia has the capacity to affect
US financial deficits; a potential decreased demand for dollars could impact US Treasury
securities (Koenig 2015). Recently, Russia and China have been cooperating to develop the CIPS. The
purpose of this system is to avoid the Western-operated Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a
privately owned international payments system used by over 10,000 financial institutions. Koenig (2016) argues, " It
would be a
formidable alternative to the western dollar based monetary Ponzi scheme ." The payment
system will be used by Brazil India Russian and China (BRIC) nations as well as Shanghai
Cooperation (SCO) nations and has the potential to be a powerful alternative to a vital US
hegemonic system.
The continuation of the dollar's position as the global reserve currency is imperative for the
United States and has been acknowledged as such in reports by the National Intelligence Council (NIC). A
2012 NIC report stated that, historically, "US dominance has been buttressed by the dollar's role as the
global reserve currency" (NIC 2012, 105). If the dollar was abandoned as the global reserve
currency, the NIC has stated that it "would be one of the sharpest indications of a loss of US
global economic position, strongly undermining Washington's political influence too" (NIC 2012, xii).
The NIC has speculated that the mere downgrading of the US dollar's reserve status "may force the
US to consider more carefully how the conduct of its foreign policy affects the dollar" (NIC 2008,
12). As these reports from the NIC indicate, the retention of the dollar's global reserve status is vital to

the future of the United States' economy , foreign policy and its hegemonic power globally .

Unipolarity is key to deter Russia and China wars, beat terrorists, and contain
North Korea—retrenchment fails.
Hal BRANDS AND Eric S. EDELMAN 17. **Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of
Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. **Counselor,
CSBA; Undersecretary of Defense (2005-9). “Avoiding a Strategy of Bluff: The Crisis of American
Military Primacy.” Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. March 20.
http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/avoiding-a-strategy-of-bluff-the-crisis-of-american-
military-primacy.
If strategy is the calculated relation of means to ends, then today America is careening toward strategic
insolvency. Following the Cold War, the United States possessed unrivaled military primacy, both globally and in all the world’s
key strategic theaters. Yet today, Washington faces military challenges that are both more severe and
more numerous than at any time in decades, precisely as its own defense cutbacks have significantly reduced U.S.
military capabilities. The United States confronts challenges from revisionist great powers such as

China and Russia , aggressive rogue states such as Iran and North Korea , and international
terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and the I slamic S tate. At the same time, constant-dollar
defense spending fell from $768 billion in 2010 to $595 billion in 2015 , the fastest drawdown—in
percentage terms—since the Korean War. The result has been a creeping crisis of American military
primacy, as the margin of superiority to which the United States has become accustomed has
diminished, and a growing gap between U.S. commitments and capabilities has emerged .
This state of strategic insolvency poses numerous dangers to both the United States and the broader
international order that American grand strategy has traditionally supported . It will
undermine U.S. alliances , by creating new doubts regarding the credibility of Washington’s
guarantees. It will undercut deterrence , by tempting adversaries such as Russia , China , and
Iran to calculate that the United States may be unwilling—or unable—to oppose aggression. It
will make for far harder fights should conflict erupt in key areas from Europe to the Middle
East to East Asia, and it may ultimately result in a situation in which the United States simply
cannot defend countries it has pledged to defend . The United States would currently face grave difficulties
defending the Baltic states from a Russian assault, for instance; the military balance around Taiwan and elsewhere
in East Asia has also eroded dramatically. Finally, as U.S. military power becomes less imposing,
U.S. diplomacy is likely to encounter greater difficulties as well. American officials continually aver that
the U.S. military is the finest fighting force in the history of the world, but today, U.S. military power has become
dangerously insufficient relative to the grand strategy and international order it has
traditionally supported.
Great powers facing strategic insolvency have three basic strategic options. First, the United States could decrease its
global commitments, thereby bringing its strategic obligations back into alignment with a diminished military resource base.
In practice, this might mean dispensing with U.S. security commitments to the most geographically exposed allies and partners—
such as Taiwan and the Baltic states—in hopes of reconsolidating a more defensible strategic perimeter. Yet
the appeal of
this option is largely illusory , for even reducing defense spending will not come close to
balancing the U.S. federal budget absent major changes in tax and entitlement policies , and
U.S. retrenchment from East Asia, the Middle East, or Eastern Europe is likely to generate
profound geopolitical instability . Aggressive revisionist powers may well be emboldened by
U.S. retreat; remaining U.S. allies may lose confidence in the credibility of American defense
pledges. Retrenchment may somewhat narrow the gap between U.S. capabilities and
commitments in the short run, but only at the likely price of a further erosion of the global
order that U.S. strategy has been meant to defend.
A second option is living with greater risk. In practice, this would mean either
gambling that enemies will not test
increasingly precarious commitments or employing riskier approaches—such as relying on
nuclear weapons or other escalatory strategies—to sustain those commitments . This approach has a
certain intuitive appeal—it substitutes deterrence by punishment for deterrence by denial—and the United States indeed relied on
such approaches during the Cold War. Yet it also entails profound liabilities. Simply hoping that exposed commitments will not be
challenged could work for a time, but this approach carries enormous risk that those guarantees will
eventually be tested and found wanting, with devastating effects . Likewise, more escalatory
approaches to deterrence may lack credibility—if America is not willing to bear the fiscal costs
associated with making its defense commitments credible through conventional means,
would it really risk the astronomically higher costs associated with nuclear escalation in a
conflict over Taiwan or the Baltic states? This approach thus risks leading the United States into a
trap where, if its interests are challenged, it is confronted with a choice between pursuing
escalatory options that carry a prohibitive price or simply acquiescing to aggression.
 EX - I/Ls
Dollar heg is key for American hegemony
Luft 18 (Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, "The anti-dollar
awakening could be ruder and sooner than most economists predict" 8/27/18,
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/27/the-anti-dollar-awakening-could-be-ruder-and-sooner-
than-most-economists-predict.html)
America's global supremacy has been made possible not only thanks to its military power and its
alliance system but also due to its control over the plumbing of global finance and particularly the
broad acceptance of the dollar as the world's reserve currency . The unique status of the U.S.
currency has anchored the global financial system since World War II.
Any transaction done in U.S. dollars or using a U.S. bank automatically brings the trading parties under American legal jurisdiction.
When the U.S. decides to impose unilateral
sanctions, as in the case of Iran, it essentially tells the world's
governments, corporations and individuals they must choose between halting business with the
sanctioned country or be shut off from the world's number one economy . This is a powerful
stick.
Not many companies or banks can afford to give up on the U.S. market or be denied access to
U.S. financial institutions

US dollar collapse ends its status as the hegemon and causes China rise
Off The Grid '14 (Off the Grid is a news site dedicated to reporting on the economy and
current international state affairs https://www.offthegridnews.com/financial/how-the-coming-
dollar-collapse-will-leave-americans-destitute/)
An increasing number of financial experts are saying the United States dollar is no longer a reliable
and dependable currency – and that its downfall is inevitable. There are even some experts
who think the dollar is so unstable that the Chinese Yuan will soon become the world’s
reserve currency, or currency of choice. “Our addictions to debt and cheap money have finally caused our major
international creditors to call for an endto dollar hegemony and to push for a ‘de-Americanized’ world,” investment advisor and
financial strategist Micheal Pento wrote in an op-ed piece for CNBC. Others agree. “In my view the dollar is about to
become dethroned as the world’s defacto currency basically,” Canadian billionaire investor Ned Goodman said.
“We’re headed to a period of stagflation, maybe serious inflation, and the United States will be losing the privilege of being able to
print at its will the global reserve currency.” Goodman believes the US already is in another recession. The unemployment numbers
are understated and the “real” unemployment number likely is closer to 15 percent, he said. Over half of 200 international
institutional investors surveyed by the Economist think that the Yuan will eventually replace the dollar as the world’s reserve
currency. The reserve currency is the money most commonly accepted for international trade. Why Reserve Currencies Matter
Having money with a reserve currency status enables a nation to dominate and control the world’s financial markets, as their
currency is used for international trade and transactions. The US has the ability to maintain a $17 trillion national debt largely
because the dollar is the reserve currency. A
nation with a reserve currency can simply print money to pay
its debts. In past centuries nations such as Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, and Portugal lost their status
as super powers in part when their money lost reserve currency status. Reserve currencies collapse
because people no longer trust or believe in the governments that issue them. Goodman says that the US dollar became the reserve
currency in the 1970s because Saudi Arabia agreed to only accept only the dollar as payment for oil. Goodman noted that at least
one major producer, Russia, is now accepting Yuan in payment for oil. Goodman was referring to a deal that Chinese President Xi
Jinping and Russian leader Vladimir Putin made last May. Under the terms of deal, Russian companies can borrow
money directly from China in exchange for oil. The US dollar once was backed by gold and
silver, Goodman said, but now is “backed by nothing.” Australia Starts Using Yuan One of
America’s oldest and closest allies may have taken the first step to ending the dollar’s reign as the reserve currency. CNBC reported
that the Yuan will now be traded in Australia’s financial markets. Among other things that will let Chinese customers pay Australian
firms in Yuan. China is the biggest market for Australia’s exports such as iron and coal. Story continues below video The Australian
government has endorsed the deal because China is Australia’s biggest trading partner. Arthur Sinodinos, Australia’s Assistant
Treasurer (treasury secretary) even went on CNBC’s Asia Squawk Box show to endorse the deal. “It’s a big vote of
confidence by both countries in the future of the relationship,” Sinodinos said. Not even recent economic
problems in China seemed to dampen Sinodinos’ enthusiasm for the arrangement. “There’s no doubt that the Chinese
authorities are having to manage issues in the financial sector to make sure that growth is
sustained, but they’ve shown great skill at that in the past they were very adept at the fallout from the
global financial crisis,” Sinodinos said. In other words, Sinokinos believes the Chinese are doing a very good job of managing
their economy and their currency is reliable. How will the Dethroning of the Dollar Affect You? Observers disagree widely on how
the end of the dollar’s reign as reserve currency would affect the US economy and average
Americans. Retired neurosurgeon and pundit Dr. Ben Carson thinks it would turn the US into a third world
nation and lead to unrest that would lead to martial law, as Off The Grid News recently reported. Goodman
believes there will soon be a massive sell off of US dollars that will lead to inflation. He also suggested a way for people to protect
their assets. “The
Chinese have three and a half trillion US dollars and they’re spending these
dollars as quickly as they can, and it will not be long before the rest of the world and the US will be thinking likewise. I
do.” Goodman said. In the 1930s, everyone wanted US dollars, he said, but today they’re trying to get rid of them. He thinks that
many investors are trying to spend all of their dollars to buy hard assets in order to avoid losing money invested in dollars. That
means average people might be able to protect themselves by investing in hard assets such as gold, real estate or silver, Goodman
said.

Dollar collapse decks the hegemonic order, incentivizes Israeli aggression, and
collapses the UK
Shield '11 (Silver Shield, The Sons of Liberty Academy is the culmination of 6 years of research
and development to create a formalized awakening process to help Americans deal with a post-
dollar world. https://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-5-worst-places-to-be-when-the-
dollar-collapses-2011-6)
The dollar collapse will be the single largest event in human history. This will be the first event that will
touch every single living person in the world. All human activity is controlled by money. Our wealth, our work, our food,
our government, even our relationships are affected by money. No money in human history
has had as much reach in both breadth and depth as the dollar . It is the de facto world currency. All other
currency collapses will pale in comparison to this big one. All other currency crises have been regional and there were
other currencies for people to grasp on to. This collapse will be global and it will bring down not only the dollar but all other fiat
currencies, as they are fundamentally no different. The collapse of currencies will lead to the collapse of ALL
paper assets. The repercussions to this will have incredible results worldwide. (Read the Silver Bullet and the Silver Shield to
protect yourself from this collapse.) Thanks to the globalization and the giant vampire squids of the Anglo-American Empire, the
dollar is the world's reserve currency. It supports the global economy in settling foreign trade, most importantly the
Petro Dollar trade. This money is recycled through the City of London (not to be confused with London) and New York. This fuels our
corporate vampires that acquires and harvests the wealth of the world. The corporate powers suppress REAL assets like natural
resources and labor to provide themselves massive profits. This
Fascist, Statist, Collectivist model provides the
money into the economy to fund an ever increasing federal government. That government then grows
larger and larger enriching its minions with jobs to control their fellow citizens. Finally, to come full circle, the government then
controls other nations through the Military Industrial Complex. This
cycle will be cut when the mathematically
and inevitable collapse of the dollar occurs. In order for our debt based money to function we
MUST increase the debt every year in excess of the debt AND interest accrued the year before or we will
enter a deflationary death spiral. When debt is created, money is created. When debt is paid off, money is destroyed. There is never
enough to pay off the debt, because there would be not one dollar in existence. We are at a point where we either default on the
debt,willingly or unwillingly,or create more money/debt to keep the cycle moving. The problem is, if you understand anything about
compounding interest, we are reaching the hockey stick moment where the more debt that is incurred,the less effective it is and this
leads us to hyper inflation. There are only two actors needed for this hyper inflation, the Lender of Last Resort, the Fed, and the
Spender of Last Resort, the government. These two can and will blow up the system. I believe they will wait until the next crisis and
the whiff of deflationary depression before they fire up the printing presses. That crisis is coming very soon at the end of this
summer or fall. The money and emergency measures are worn out. The fact that NONE of the underlying problems that caused the
2008 crisis have been resolved. The only thing that has happened is that instead of corporate problems,we now have nation
problems. In this movie Greece will play the role of Lehman Brothers and the United States will play the role of AIG. The problem is
there is nowhere to kick the can down the road and there is no world government to absorb the debt,yet…
(Problem,Reaction,Solution.) So this leads me to the Top 5 Places Not To Be When the Dollar Collapses. 1.
Israel- This Anglo-
American beach head into the Middle East was first conceived by the most powerful family in
the world, the Rothschilds, in 1917. The Balfour Declaration said that there will be a Zionist Israel years before World
War two and the eventual establishment of Israel. Israel has not been a good neighbor to its Muslim nations and has always had the
two biggest bullies on the block at it's back. When
the dollar collapses, the United States will have too
much on its plate both domestically and internationally to worry about such a non-strategic
piece of land. This will leave Israel very weak at a time when tensions will be high. This very thin strip of desert land will not
be able to with stand the economic reality of importing its food and fuel or the political reality
of being surrounded by Muslims. 2. Southern California- The land of Fruits and Nuts turns into
Battlefield Los Angeles. 20 million people packed into an area that has no water and thus food
is not good to say the least. Throw on top of the huge wealth disparities and the proximity to a narco state and this does
not bode well. We have seen riots for Rodney King, what will happen when the dollar is destroyed
and food an fuel stop coming into this area . People will get desperate and do crazy things, especially when a huge
proportion of its citizens are on anti depressants. If food and fuel cannot get in, what about Zoloft? At a time when people's world
are falling apart they lack the ability to deal with this new paradigm. If people come off of these drugs too fast they suffer psychotic
breaks and you will have thousands of shootings or suicides. 3. England- The Land of the Big Brother and
former Empire of
world wide slave and drug trade will suffer heavily. The stiff upper lip that their the British Elite ingrained into
their sheeple will not work anymore as the British population explodes. The human character will sacrifice and
unite for a foreign enemy,but not if the enemy has always been the Elite . The Anglo-American Empire
may pull off another false flag to distract it's population on another Emmanuel Goldstein like in 1984, but I feel
this collapse will happen before they pull it off. This will make all eyes point at the British Elite as solely responsible for this
catastrophe. We have seen massive riots for soccer matches with hooligans. What will happen when this island with very little food
and fuel gets cut off? 4. New York City- Another large urban area living too high on the dollar hog. NYC is the area I moved out of in
2008. There is little doubt that all of the wealth in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut is
derivative off of Wall Street wealth. The savings and investments of the whole nation and much of the world flows
through this financial capital. As the world wakes up to the massive financial fraud, this will lead to the
destruction of capital like we have never seen before. This will have tremendous effects on the regional
economy as people driving in Mercedes suddenly wonder where their next meal is coming from. 5. Washington D.C.- The
political collapse of the Federal Government will wreck havoc on the hugely inflated local
economy. As more and more states find it necessary to assert their natural control, the
Federal Government will suddenly loose power and importance as the whole world suffers from a Global
Hurricane Katrina. The money that they create and spend, will become worthless and the
government minions pensions will evaporate. Millions that once relied on the ability to force others to send their
money to them,will learn that the real power has always been at the most local level. Massive decentralization will be the answer to
globalization gone mad. Local families and communities will forgo sending money and power out of their community, as they will
care about their next meal and keeping warm. "You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the
consequences of ignoring reality." -Ayn Rand To sum up, those areas that have lived highest on
the hog in the dollar paradigm will most likely be the worst places to live when the dollar
collapses. Many of you will find this article with passing interest, but rest assured this dollar collapse is coming. It is a
mathematical inevitability. We will not be as fortunate to muddle through this collapse like we did in 2008 when it was a corporate
problem. This time around, it is a national and global problem. The global Ponzi scheme has run out of gas as the demographics
decline, as cheap abundant oil declines, as hegemonic power declines. This comes at a time when we reach the exponential or
collapse phase of our money. The Irresistible Force Paradox says, "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable
object?" We are about to find out, when infinite money hits a very finite world.

US dollar decline decks heg and kills US credit

Raventos '19 (Francesc Raventós is an economist, former dean of the Official Economist
Association of Spain in Madrid, deputy mayor of Barcelona and co-author of Economic and
Social Strategic Plan for the future of Barcelona. https://www.socialeurope.eu/could-the-dollar-
be-in-default)
Because the US is a very powerful economy and the dollar is the main international reserve
currency, it has not been hard to finance its shortfalls. But how far can the US increase its debt without losing
the confidence of the market? No theory determines the cap of a country’s public debt— it basically depends on the
degree of confidence in the currency. In the European Union, for example, its member
countries should not exceed public debt of 60 per cent of GDP but some surpass it substantially.
For the near future, important financial institutions foresee a new economic recession. If it happens, how would it affect the US
economy and the dollar? Could it have difficulties with its current high debt? Could
the American debt be in default?
Technically this cannot be and politically it’s unthinkable: the US can always issue more dollars to pay off
debts.
This situation would not however prevent loss of creditors’ trust and probably a downward
spiral from the deficit to the issue of dollars, to higher interest rates, to more debt and so more deficit. If this were
to happen, it would engender an immense psychological shock for the American population and for the world as well.
Central banks are far from having recovered the normalcy which prevailed before the 2007 crisis. If a new crisis arises, they will not
be able to supply as much money and keep lowering the interest rate as they did.
In a world that has become multipolar, it is likely that the dollar will progressively cease to
enjoy hegemony as the international reserve currency and the main currency for commercial
transactions—and it will keep losing value. Consider that to have the same purchasing power of 100 dollars in 1913
would require 2,000 dollars today. Inflation and the continued issue of dollars are the two main reasons for this eroded value.

A weaponized dollar will be turned against us when it collapses – that cements

US decline and causes the rise of revisionist powers
Siegel 7-11-19 (Jeff Siegel is Energy and Capital’s clean energy guru. After launching his independent investment research
service, Green Chip Stocks, in 2006, Jeff has become one of the most sought-after investment experts in clean energy. A true insider,
Jeff’s early focus on solar, wind, geothermal, electric vehicles, and energy storage earned him recurring appearances on Fox, CNBC,
and Bloomberg. Today, Jeff provides up-to-date analysis on the ever-changing clean energy industry. He continues to serve as the
chief investment strategist for Green Chip Stocks and is the author of the best-selling energy book, Investing in Renewable Energy:
Making Money on Green Chip Stocks and is the co-author of Energy Investing for Dummies.
https://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/with-the-death-of-the-dollar-comes-the-death-of-america/92908)
It’s not aircraft carriers and nuclear missiles that make the U.S. one of the most feared countries in the world. It’s our currency. And
this country has a long history of weaponzing the dollar in an effort to make its enemies crumble. But this
practice is about to backfire. Because if you threaten folks long enough and screw with their
money, they’ll eventually strike back. And there is mounting evidence that this is what’s happening right now. The
U.S. dollar is the foundation on which the United States has built its superpower status. And
this nation has never been afraid of wielding this power to call the shots on an international
stage. We’ve used it countless times to bring our adversaries to their knees. And we’ve continued to
use it even more aggressively over the past 20 years. But this trend is starting to put the U.S. at risk of losing
everything, as other nations are now starting to join forces to strip the U.S. of its power by seeking alternatives to the U.S.
dollar. If such a thing were to happen on a large scale, the U.S. would lose much of its power — and wealth. Analyst Patrick
Lawrence opined on this very issue and really hit the nail on the head when he noted that as the U.S. continues to weaponize the
dollar, it is prompting many other nations to find alternatives to the U.S. currency as the default medium of exchange. Here’s more:
The impulse to de-dollarize international trade and financial transactions has been evident for some time. Russia
has actively
encouraged its trading partners to avoid the dollar in favor of local currencies since Washington
imposed sanctions against Russia following the U.S.–cultivated coup in Ukraine five years ago. Russia is now recruiting other nations
to participate in its alternative to the U.S.–controlled SWIFT bank-messaging system.
China has set up a parallel
mechanism, the Cross–Border Interbank Payments System. China launched an oil-futures
market denominated in yuan little more than a year ago . Its annual turnover is already the equivalent of
$2.5 trillion. The Shanghai Futures Exchange, where oil futures are traded, recently announced plans to offer forward contracts in
rubber, nonferrous metals, and other commodities — all to be transacted in yuan. The G–20 gathering marked an important step for
these de-dollarization efforts. France, Germany, and Britain announced on the opening day that a trading system developed over the
past year to circumvent U.S. sanctions against Iran — and any entity transacting with it — is now operational. I know there are
plenty of folks who love to chant U-S-A... U-S-A... U-S-A... But the reality is that the
U.S. is a bully nation that many
other countries would love to see taken down a few notches. This, by the way, is not an anti-
American comment. It’s simply an observation of truth. And here’s another truth that’s likely to piss a lot of
people off... While plenty of other countries are actively seeking to derail the dollar as the

default medium of exchange, we continue to disregard the many small cuts that are bleeding
the health of our economy.

Even if the dollar is strong now, the plan triggers a switch to alternate
currencies and decks US leadership
Tappe 7-12-19 (Anneken Tappe is a financial journalist based in New York, New York. She is a
markets reporter at MarketWatch. [1] [2] https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/12/investing/dollar-
big-mac-index/index.html)
New York (CNN Business) The US dollar's share of global reserves is falling, while the euro and

Chinese yuan are becoming more popular. Is the dollar's reign coming to an end ? Not so fast.
Although the United States' trade policies are part of the reason central banks around the globe looking to diversify their currency
holdings, the dollar remains the world's reserve currency for a reason: Everyone trades it, the American economy is strong, and it is
backed by the full faith and credit of the the US Treasury. Last year, the
dollar's share of global reserves dropped
to below 62%, according to a report by the European Central Bank reviewing the international role of currencies and the euro.
That's the lowest level since the start of the Economic and Monetary Union, which was in 1992. The dollar's share is now
more than seven percentage points lower than it was before the financial crisis. But the total
amount of dollars held in the world actually went up last year. "There have been some movements in
reserves, but dollar holdings have never been larger," because total reserves in the world have grown, said Marc Chandler, chief
market strategist at Bannockburn Global Forex. Central banks and similar institutions hold dollars, often in form of US Treasuries, as
backup funds in case of a crisis event -- and also to facilitate international payments. Other currencies like the euro and, more
recently, the Chinese yuan are used to diversify so not all central bank eggs are in one dollar-denominated basket. The share of yuan
reserves reached almost 2% last year, nearly double compared with early 2017. The euro is the second most popular reserve with a
global share just under 21%, notwithstanding today's drop in the currency after ECB President Mario Draghi hinted at a path for
more monetary stimulus in for the eurozone. Politics are likely playing are role in these movements, with ongoing trade spats
between the United States and its partners. Both politics and market volatility can be blamed for the dollar's loss of market share
last year. Some
central banks actively diversified their reserves to move away from the dominant
dollar because of actions by the United States. "One example is Russia, one of the world's largest
reserve holders, which sold about $100 billion worth of US dollar-denominated reserves in the
wake of new rounds of US sanctions, and purchased almost $90 billion worth of euro-denominated and renminbi [Chinese yuan]-
denominated assets in the second quarter of 2018," the ECB report said. China
also reduced its US Treasury
holdings "to the tune of about $60 billion" over the course of last year amid the escalating trade war, according to
the report. But one fundamental problem for central banks is choosing an alternative to the greenback that is similar in liquidity and
market depth, said Neil Mellor, chief currency strategist at BNY Mellon. That is to say, while it's a fine concept to want to diversify
from US holdings to a smaller country's government bonds, that market might not be sophisticated or large enough to make sense
for this kind of investment. Anotherreason the dollar's share got knocked last year is that emerging
markets, such as Turkey and Argentina, sold a lot of their foreign reserves to stabilize their own
currencies. As the Federal Reserve was raising interest rates at the time, the dollar strengthened, which caused pain for
emerging markets, many of which have dollar-denominated debt. Between March and September 2018, emerging markets central
banks sold some $200 billion in foreign exchange reserves, according to the ECB report. The dollar's share of global reserves might
well continue to decline going forward even as overall reserves increase. But so far, it doesn't look like the dollar will lose its status
as No. 1 anytime soon. "It's too early to tell if this is the beginning of the end of the dollar as the king reserve currency," said
Chandler, the Bannockburn market strategist. "If the dollar share is going down because people have lost
confidence [in the United States] due to repeated recessions and financial crisis, that's one
thing. But if it is about straight diversification, that is not in and of itself a bad thing."

Losing dollar heg would severely hurt US geopolitical strategies

NA 4/6/19 " Even Saudi Arabia Threatens To Ditch Dollar For Oil Trade Over US Bullying Policies."
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Even-Saudi-Arabia-Threatens-to-Ditch-Dollar-for-Oil-Trade-Over-US-Bullying-Policies-
20190406-0011.html
Saudi Arabia threatens to sell oil in currencies other than the dollar if Washington passes a bill
exposing the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to U.S. antitrust lawsuits. The No Oil Producing and Exporting
Cartels Act (NOPEC), which was introduced by Democrat Senator Herb Kohl in 2000 and received backing from Donald Trump in
2011, has never been approved and has little chance of being passed. This legislative proposal aims to allow OPEC oil companies to
be sued under the U.S. antitrust law for their attempts to set international prices by limiting oil supplies, a practice which has been
regularly applied as a way of stabilizing the global market. The Saudi Arabian threat makes visible a growing discontent over the way
the U.S. treats OPEC countries. According to Reuters, senior Saudi energy officials have been analyzing the ditching-dollar-oil-trades
possibility for several months and would have already mentioned reported it to U.S. officials. In the unlikely event that Saudi Arabia
it would undermine the dollar status as an international reserve
were to adopt this new policy,
currency, which could weaken in turn the U.S. ability to enforce economic sanctions on
nation states. "The Saudis know they have the dollar as nuclear option" and if Washington and Trump "let the NOPEC pass ...
it would be the U.S. economy that would fall apart," the source added in comments to Reuters. Russia,
China and some European countries have been calling for reducing the dollar’s influence in international trade. If this happens, the
U.S. would lose a significant part of its ability to control both the world economy and its own growth. Due to President Trump’s
aggressive foreign policy, however, Russia, Venezuela and Iran, all of which are being placed under harsh U.s. economic sanctions
have been selling their oil in Euros, Yuans or other traditional or virtual currencies. Non-dollar oil contracts are concrete challenges to
the U.S. hegemony at the oil market. If
Saudi Arabia makes a move in that sense, it would also mean
a heavy blow to the U.S. geopolitical strategies. Saudi Arabia, which controls a 10th of global production,
made oil deals for US$356 billion in 2018, which made it the world's biggest oil exporter. At a price of US$70 per barrel, the global
oil output is estimated to be about US$2.5 trillion. At least 60 percent of this amount is now being traded in dollars. In addition, oil
futures and options trading reached a nominal value of US$5 trillion in 2018, as reported by Reuters.

The petrodollar collapse would get rid of the geopolitical leverage

Paul 16 Ron Paul is The leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a
return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. "Collapse of the Petro-Dollar"
https://www.bullionvault.com/gold-news/petro-dollar-012820161
In essence, the Petro-Dollar system was an agreement that the US would guarantee the
survival of the House of Saud. In exchange, Saudi Arabia would: Use its dominant position in Opec to ensure that all oil
transactions would happen in US Dollars; Invest a large amount of its Dollars from oil revenue in US Treasury securities and use the interest payments from those securities to
pay US companies to modernize the infrastructure of Saudi Arabia; Guarantee the price of oil within limits acceptable to the US and prevent another oil embargo by other Opec
members; Oil is the world's most traded and most strategic commodity. Needing to use Dollars for oil transactions is a very compelling reason for foreign countries to keep large
US Dollar reserves. For example, if Italy wants to buy oil from Kuwait, it has to purchase US Dollars on the foreign exchange market to pay for the oil first. This creates an artificial
market for US Dollars that would not otherwise exist. The demand is artificial because the US Dollar is just a middleman in a transaction that has nothing to do with a US product
or service. Ultimately, it translates into increased purchasing power and a deeper, more liquid market for the US Dollar and US Treasuries. Additionally, the US has the unique
privilege of not having to use foreign currency to buy imports, including oil. Instead, it gets to use its own currency, which it can print. It's hard to overstate how much the Petro-
Dollar system benefits the US Dollar. It's allowed the US government and many Americans to live beyond their means for decades. The geopolitical sands of the Middle East are
rapidly shifting. Saudi Arabia's strategic regional position is weakening. Iran, which is notably not part of the Petro-Dollar system, is on the rise. US military interventions are
failing. And the emerging BRICS countries are creating potential alternatives to US-dominated economic/security arrangements. This all affects the sustainability of the Petro-
Dollar system. The Saudis are furious because they don't think the US is holding up its end of the Petro-Dollar deal by more aggressively attacking their regional rivals. This

their part of the deal much longer, namely selling their oil exclusively in US Dollars . The Saudis
suggests that they might not uphold

have even suggested a "major shift" is under way in their relationship with the US To date, though,
they haven't matched their words with action, so it may just be a temper tantrum or a bluff. The Saudis need an outside protector. So far, they haven't found any suitable
replacements for the US In any case, they're using truly unprecedented language. This situation may reach a turning point when US officials start expounding on the need to
transform the monarchy in Saudi Arabia into a "democracy." But don't count on that happening as long as Saudi oil sells exclusively for US Dollars. Regardless, the chances that
the Kingdom might implode on its own are growing. For the first time in decades, observers are calling into question the viability of the Saudi currency, the Riyal. The Saudi
central bank currently pegs the Riyal at a rate of 3.75 Riyals per US Dollar. The Saudi government spends a ton of money on welfare to keep its citizens sedated. Lower oil prices
plus the cost of their mischief in the region are cutting deep into government revenue. So there's less money to spend on welfare. There's a serious crunch in the Saudi budget.
They've only been able to stay afloat by draining their foreign exchange reserves. That threatens their currency peg. Recently, Saudi officials have begun telling the
media that the currency peg is fine and there's nothing to worry about. That's another clue that there's trouble.
Official government denial is almost always a sign of the opposite. It's like the old saying: "Believe nothing until it has been officially denied." If there were a convenient way to
short the Saudi Riyal, I would do it in a heartbeat. Long before Nixon ended the Bretton Woods system in 1971, it was clear that a paradigm shift in the global monetary system
was inevitable. Today, another paradigm shift seems inevitable. As Ron Paul explained, there's one sure way to know when that shift is imminent: We will know that day is
approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than Dollars or Euros. It's very possible that, one day soon, Americans will wake up

The Petro-Dollar system has allowed the US

to a new reality, just as they did in 1971 when Nixon severed the Dollar's final link to gold.

government and many US citizens to live way beyond their means for decades. It also gives
the US unchecked geopolitical leverage. The US can exclude virtually any country from the US Dollar-based financial system...and, by
extension, from the vast majority of international trade. The US takes this unique position for granted. But it will disappear once the Dollar loses its premier status. This will likely
be the tipping point... Afterward, the US government will be desperate enough to implement capital controls, people controls, nationalization of retirement savings, and other
forms of wealth confiscation. I urge you to prepare for the economic and sociopolitical fallout while you still can. Expect bigger government, less freedom, shrinking
prosperity...and possibly worse. It's probably not going to happen tomorrow. But it's clear where the trend is headed. Once the Petro-Dollar system kicks the bucket and the
Dollar loses its status as the world's premier reserve currency, you will have few, if any, options to protect yourself. This is why it's essential to act before that happens. The sad
truth is, most people have no idea how bad things could get, let alone how to prepare.

US control of the greenback is key to hegemony – multiple warrants

Hudson 7/21
Keynote Paper delivered at the 14th Forum of the World Association for Political Economy, July
21, 2019 .https://michael-hudson.com/2019/07/u-s-economic-warfare-and-likely-foreign-
defenses///dvb
U.S . control of dollarized money and credit is critical to this hegemony. As Congressman Brad
Sherman of Los Angeles told a House Financial Services Committee hearing on May 9, 2019: “ An awful lot of our
international power comes from the fact that the U.S. dollar is the standard unit of
international finance and transactions . Clearing through the New York Fed is critical for major oil and other
transactions. It is the announced purpose of the supporters of cryptocurrency to take that power away from us, to put us in a
position where the most significant sanctions we have against Iran, for example, would become irrelevant.”[1]
The U.S. aim is to keep the dollar as the transactions currency for world trade, savings,
central bank reserves and international lending . This monopoly status enables the U.S. Treasury and
State Department to disrupt the financial payments system and trade for countries with
which the United States is at economic or outright military war.
 AT Trumper
Trump is just a speed-bump—long-term foundations of internationalism remain
intact.
Hal BRANDS AND Charles EDEL 17. **Henry A. Kissinger Professor, Global Affairs, Johns
Hopkins. **Associate Professor, Strategy and Policy, U.S. Naval War College. “The Gathering
Storm vs. the Crisis of Confidence.” Foreign Policy. July 14.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/14/the-gathering-storm-vs-the-crisis-of-confidence-trump-
1930s-1970s/.
In many ways, this was an accurate reflection of the national mood at the end of the 1970s. During that decade, the United
States faced a raft of serious challenges — severe economic competition from other leading powers, the
rise of the Soviet Union as a global peer competitor in military terms, the stagflation and national humiliation caused
by the oil shocks. There were concerns that the United States was turning inward in the wake of
Vietnam, as leading congressional observers even sought to withdraw significant numbers of
U.S. troops from Europe. Economic nationalism was on the rise. Richard Nixon’s first treasury secretary,
John Connally, artfully expressed the ethos: “Foreigners are out to screw us. Our job is to screw them first.”
In these circumstances, doubts
about the staying power of the United States and the postwar
international system were pervasive. Defenders of that system fretted that the American era
was coming to a close; enemies of the free world were often exultant. “The retreat of American power” could “become a
rout,” James Schlesinger, the former secretary of defense and secretary of energy, wrote in 1979. “The trend could well become
irreversible in many respects.” “Imperialism is not able to face the crises,” Leonid Brezhnev had told Warsaw Pact leaders the year
prior.
And yet the 1970s proved not to be the death knell for American power and the free world
system erected after World War II, but simply a difficult moment that served as prelude to renewal . By
the late 1970s, the world was again turning in America’s direction — democracy was spreading,
globalization was racing ahead, America’s primary great-power competitor was sliding into
irreversible decline. And by the early 1980s the United States was pursuing assertive and broadly effective strategies for re-
establishing its global ascendancy and pushing the positive trends along. Within a decade, the Cold War had ended on American
terms, as democracy and markets were advancing — with U.S. assistance — further than ever before.
If focusing on the 1930s analogy thus leads one to fear that the end of the international order is nigh, looking
at the 1970s
encourages the conclusion that perhaps the future is relatively bright after all . In this view, the
United States and the international system it anchors still have tremendous and unmatched
strengths vis-à-vis the competition, the long-term trends are working in Washington’s favor,
and America is simply experiencing one of its periodic moments of doubt and introspection
rather than a more fundamental turn away from internationalism — just as occurred during the 1970s.
So how well does this analogy fit? In some ways, emphasizing the 1970s comparison risks understating the difficulties and challenges America faces today. For all the disillusion
occasioned by Vietnam, America did not elect a president who repudiated key traditions of U.S. foreign policy as vehemently and frequently as Donald Trump did during the
2016 campaign. American “soft power” took a beating amid the domestic upheaval of the 1970s, but that weakness may ultimately prove to be minor compared with the loss of
prestige the United States is already suffering as a result of Trump’s presidency.
From a global perspective, the Soviet Union may have been an authentic military peer rival during the 1970s, but even at its peak its sclerotic, command economy never
threatened U.S. economic primacy as China does today. And in the 1970s, the United States was able deftly to play China and the Soviet Union against each other; today,
Washington has fraught and deteriorating relations with both powers as they challenge international norms and geopolitical arrangements to which they were never genuinely
reconciled. The 1970s were a difficult period, no doubt, but the comparison may — at least in some ways — encourage too rosy a view of what America confronts today.
Yet if the 1970s are far from the perfect analogy, the period does nonetheless illuminate important aspects of the contemporary moment. It reminds us that, today as in the
past, America’s competitors face long-term challenges that make ours look relatively modest by comparison. Russia is, after all, a declining economic power and a demographic
basket case; its military power thus rests on extremely precarious foundations. China is already dealing with slowing economic growth, a rapidly aging population, and a massive
debt bubble, and its sense of geopolitical self-confidence hardly conceals its leadership’s transparent nervousness about growing social unrest and other signs of dissatisfaction
with a corrupt and ruthlessly authoritarian political system.

Similarly, the
1970s analogy reminds us to take into account long-range U.S. strengths that no
adversary can match and to factor in emerging trends that may play to America’s advantage.
Washington’s unequaled collection of allies, its relatively healthy demographic profile, its culture of innovation, and its
repeated resilience in the face of macroeconomic shifts falls into the first category; an energy revolution that is giving America new
economic and geopolitical leverage is but one example of the second.
Moreover, the experience of the 1970s underscores that assertive challengers often overplay their hand, thereby risking overreach
and exposing vulnerabilities for the United States and its allies to exploit. An overconfident Moscow took on numerous Third World
commitments during the 1970s, allowing Carter and then Reagan to punish that overextension through support to anti-communist
guerrillas. Should Russia and China continue their revisionist behavior today, they are similarly likely to encourage geopolitical
blowback, if only by driving their rivals toward closer cooperation with one another and with the United States. Additionally, we
can learn from the 1970s that our current traumas are neither unprecedented nor particularly
severe by historical standards. In its effects on U.S. political stability and American power , the
Vietnam War was far worse than anything the country has experienced in Iraq or Afghanistan over
the past 15 years.
Finally, the experience of the 1970s also cautions us not to panic about the state of American
internationalism. Yes, the Trump phenomenon is deeply disturbing for those who wish to see a
globally engaged America contributing constructively on issues including international trade and
combating climate change. But we have lived through periods of American disillusion with the
world before, as the experience of the 1970s reminds us, and the logic of global engagement
and activism has generally reasserted itself after a fashion — usually in response to threatening
developments abroad. Indeed, the fact that public opinion polling on support for U.S. alliances
and honoring America’s overseas commitments actually looked much worse in the mid-1970s
than it does at present (after the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, for instance, only 36 percent of Americans felt that “it was
important for the United States to make and keep commitments to other nations”) provides some antidote to
pessimism today.
AT Warming Turn
 AT I/L - Generic
Emissions of fossil fuels have nothing to do with global warming
Happer 09 (William Happer- the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton
University, “Global warming not related to fossil fuel combustion”,
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2009/03/13/global-warming-normal-nothing-to-do-with-fossil-
fuels/)
The current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2.
There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These
earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current
warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon
dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling.
This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models.

Carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant and has no impact

Craig Idso, ‘17, Dr. Idso is the founder, former president, and currently chairman of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.. "PRESS RELEASE: HEARTLAND INSTITUTE
EXPERTS REACT TO EPA SCRAPPING THE CLEAN POWER PLAN," Heartland
Institute, https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/press-release-heartland-institute-
experts-react-to-epa-scrapping-the-clean-power-plan,
Mateo Today’s action by Pruitt is a wake-up call for those who continue to falsely claim carbon dioxide is a
pollutant. It isn’t, so get over it! Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas that is
essential for life on Earth. It will never cause the dangerous global warming  that climate
alarmists and their failed models predict.  Future legal challenges to reverse Pruitt’s action are welcomed, as they will
only fail in the end.
 AT I/L - Methane Key
Methane is the real cause to global warming
Harris 10 (Richard Harris - Award-winning journalist Richard Harris has reported on a wide
range of topics in science, medicine and the environment since he joined NPR in 1986. In early
2014, his focus shifted from an emphasis on climate change and the environment to biomedical
research, “Methane Causes Vicious Cycle In Global Warming”,
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122638800)
Methane gas comes from all sorts of sources including wetlands, rice paddies, cow tummies, coal mines, garbage dumps and even termites. Drew Shindell, at NASA's
Goddard Institute in New York, says, "It's gone up by 150 percent since the pre-industrial period. So that's an

enormous increase. CO2, by contrast, has gone up by something like 30 percent. " More From This Series New
Anti-Smog Restrictions Could Warm Planet Jan. 25, 2010 Molecule for molecule, methane is much more effective than carbon

dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere . And that's just part of the trouble. "Methane is much more
complicated once it gets into the atmosphere than something like carbon dioxide is ," Shindell says, "and
that's because it reacts with a lot of different important chemicals." For example , methane in the atmosphere also creates ground-

level ozone. And ozone isn't only bad for human health; it also contributes to global warming. Shindell recently totaled up all the effects
of methane emissions and realized that the heating effect is more than 60 percent that of carbon dioxide's . "So that
tells you that methane is a pretty big player." Methane in the atmosphere leveled off in the 1990s, so it seemed that efforts to control industrial emissions were keeping this
problem gas in check. But since 2007, methane levels have been on the rise again.
 No Impact - Models
Extinction claims inaccurately deviate from predictive modeling—adaptation
checks worst case scenarios
Willis, et. al, ‘10 [Kathy J. Willis, Keith D. Bennett, Shonil A. Bhagwat & H. John B. Birks
(2010): 4 °C and beyond: what did this mean for biodiversity in the past?, Systematics and
Biodiversity, 8:1, 3-9, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14772000903495833, ]
Given that this temperature increase was greater in magnitude and rate to anything predicted for
the next century, it is an extremely useful time interval to examine possible biotic responses to 4 ◦ C and beyond. In order to assess
biotic responses, however, it is also important to have records with a good temporal resolution, ideally annual resolution. A review
of the vegetational responses recorded in 11 sedimentary sequences with a suitably high temporal resolution from around the North
Atlantic region (Williams et al., 2002), indicates that in North America and Europe, in less than 100 years, vegetation responded to
the rapid climate change 11 600 years ago. For tree populations, this change often occurred in less than two or three generations.
The nature of the response depended upon the former vegetation; in central Europe (e.g. Willis et al., 1997; Feurdean et al., 2007)
and parts of eastern North America, for example, there is evidence in many regions for a change from needle-leaved dominated to
broad-leaved dominated forest, often in less than 100 years. In comparison, closer to the ice-sheets, in western Norway, there was a
rapid expansion in the herbaceous and shrub flora and a later arrival of trees, probably due to a time lag for migration from refugial
areas (Birks & Birks, 2008). The increase in tree populations, however, even in these northerly regions was still rapid (Birks &
Ammann, 2000). A recent study from the East Baltic region, for example, indicates that those trees that survived in northerly refugial
populations (Betula, Pinus, Picea) established within a century, suggesting climatedriven ecosystem changes rather than gradual
plant succession on new deglaciated land (Heikkila¨ et al., 2009). Thus some species expanded very fast in
response to late-glacial warming. There is also evidence, however, for species that expanded slowly or largely failed to
expand from their refugia in response to this interval of rapid climate warming (Svenning & Skov, 2007) suggesting that persistence
and expansion is also dependent on being in a location that was continuously suitable during the glacial–interglacial ‘cycle’ (Bennett
et al., 1991). Biotic responses to this interval of rapid climate warming throughout Europe and North America therefore include
evidence for (i) rapid expansion of in situ populations, (ii) large-scale species range shifts (Birks & Willis, 2008), (iii) community
turnover (Birks & Birks, 2008) and (iv) the formation of novel community assemblages (Williams & Jackson, 2007). However, at
no
site yet studied, anywhere in the world, is there evidence in the fossil record for largescale climate-
driven extinction during this interval of rapid climate change (Botkin et al., 2007). In some regions there was
local or regional extinction, as is apparent throughout the cold-stages of the Quaternary when increasing numbers of tropical species
went locally or regionally extinct in Europe (Tallis, 1991; Svenning, 2003; Willis & Niklas, 2004). There is evidence in the fossil record
for the total extinction of only one species, the east North American spruce Picea critchfieldii (Jackson & Weng, 1999), but
evidence for widespread global extinction of plants in this interval of very rapid climate warming has yet to
be demonstrated. It had been argued previously that the large-scale megafaunal extinction that occurred at the end of the
Pleistocene was climatically driven, but a large number of studies now suggests that this was a predominantly human-driven
extinction event that spanned thousands of years (Koch & Barnosky, 2006; Johnson, 2009) rather than a rapid response to the large
temperature increase at the late-glacial/post-glacial transition.

Climate Change reports are exaggerated – actual science proves there’s no

substantial change
H. Sterling Burnett, 12-17-2018, H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is a Heartland senior fellow on
environmental policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
"National Climate Assessment Criticized as Badly Flawed," Heartland
Institute, https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/national-climate-
assessment-criticized-as-badly-flawed, Mateo
The final version of the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), reflecting the work of the 13 different federal agencies that make up the U.S. Global Climate Change Research program (USGCCR), was released on Friday, November 23.  The 1990 Global Climate
Research Act required the president to establish the USGCCR, charged with issuing a report describing the state of the climate and the economic, environmental, health, and safety consequences of climate change, every four years. Predicting Extreme Harm Upon
NCA4’s release, USGCCR spokespersons stressed extreme estimates of harm included in the 1,600-page report. “The impacts and costs of climate change are already being felt in the United States, and changes in the likelihood or severity of some recent extreme
weather events can now be attributed with increasingly higher confidence to human-caused warming,” NCA4 says. NCA4’s worst-case scenario assumes the world’s human population will grow to 12 billion by 2100, the rate of technological change will stagnate,
economic growth will slow, and fossil fuel use will be 300 percent greater than today. As a result, NCA4 estimates atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will reach 950 parts per million (ppm), up from 405 ppm at present, resulting in the global average
temperature rising by 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. Among the myriad harms NCA4 claims will occur by 2100 based on these assumptions are U.S. GDP will be 10 percent lower than it otherwise would be; crop losses and damage from extreme weather will
top $500 billion per year; and the United States will experience $141 billion in annual economic losses from thousands of premature deaths from heat, plus billions of dollars in losses from premature deaths and damage from extreme flood, wildfire, and weather
events the study predicts will happen more regularly. President Rejects Findings When asked on November 26 his thoughts on NCA4, President Donald Trump was unperturbed, maintaining his previous skepticism about the dangers of anthropogenic climate change.
“I’ve seen it. I’ve read some of it,” said Trump. “I don’t believe it.” This is a purely political report that Trump is right to reject, says Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D. , president of The Heartland Institute, which publishes Environment & Climate News and

“This latest climate report is

produced its own detailed critique of a draft version of NCA4 in early 2018.   just more of the same—except for even  greater exaggeration,
worse science This report is
, and added interference in the political process by unelected, self-serving bureaucrats,” said Huelskamp. “  from the climate alarmist Deep State in our government   even

hysterical
more  The idea global temperatures could rise
 than some United Nations reports. “  is absurd, and  as much as 12 degrees in the next 80 years

not a shred of actual data supports that  and observation  global ,” Huelskamp said. “As noted in the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report Climate Change Reconsidered, 

temperatures have stayed largely the same for much of the last 20 years, and sea levels have
not been rising at an accelerated rate . President Trump was required by law to release this report, but he is not required to take it seriously—and he surely will not.”‘Blatantly Absurd Conclusions’
NCA4 is extremely inaccurate because it is based on flawed computer models, says Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director at The Heartland Institute. “I have never seen such blatantly absurd conclusions drawn entirely from mathematical models that use only a limited

The physical evidence conclusively shows the  frequency and strength of hurricanes,
number of variables,” said Lehr. “

floods, and wildfires has been declining for years , not increasing . “Of course, this shoddy science by Obama-era appointees serves its real purpose:
producing a preordained political outcome that puts more power and money in the hands of the United Nations,” Lehr said. The government agencies involved in the report are putting politics above the pursuit of truth, says University of Delaware climatology
professor David Legates, Ph.D. “The Obama administration demanded the use of the extreme scenarios so the predicted impact on the populace would be substantial,” Legates said. “This isn’t about the science. If it were, there would be discussions about the other
scenarios and about the uncertainties in the climate system and in the models that drive these scenarios. “They have taken the worst possible scenarios and packaged them as if they were the expected norm,” said Legates. “Climate science has all but died in this
country.”‘Completely Unbelievable’ NCA4 was written to incite drastic action to fight climate change, says Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition. “The Fourth National Climate Assessment, released just over a week before the
24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, seems designed to provide ammunition to those who want drastic action on climate change,” Harris said. “The problem is NCA4’s conclusions are so extreme as to be
completely unbelievable and easily dismissed by any thinking person.” The cost estimates of the harm from future climate changes are built on assumptions about carbon dioxide emissions well outside mainstream analyses, says Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D., director of
the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.
“The ‘social cost’ of carbon dioxide emissions is highly dependent upon the assumptions made in its calculation,” said Michaels. “For example, using the historical 7 percent
discount rate and more modest equilibrium climate sensitivities calculated by John Christy and Nic Lewis, the cost actually becomes negative, meaning there is a net benefit of a
few dollars per emitted ton.
“By using lower discount rates and high emissions scenarios and sensitivities, holdovers from the Obama administration were able to calculate costs in excess of $50 per ton,”
Michaels said.
 No Impact - Squo Solves
Tech solves—reject their alarmist impact claims
Gertner 6-7-19 (Jon, “Maybe We’re Not Doomed After
All,” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/opinion/climate-change-hope-solutions.html?
emc=rss&partner=rss, ME)
As the effects of a warming climate intensify and a sense of impending catastrophe grows stronger, it’s becoming easier to give in to
environmental despair. Having spent the past five years studying the Arctic and traveling around Greenland, I feel the pull as well.
Glaciers and sea ice are melting at an alarming rate; temperatures are rising at a steady clip. To make matters worse, the Trump
administration’s recent efforts to ignore a fact-based, scientific approach — rejecting, for instance, the use of computer projections
to assess how a warming world might look after 2040 — leads me to worry that climate denialism is moving from the scientific
fringes to the institutional center. Still, it’s worth considering that things
may not be as bad as they appear. I say this
with a full understanding that most indicators are pointing in the wrong direction. Yet I also feel we’re in danger of losing sight
of two crucial and encouraging aspects of our predicament. The first is the extraordinary value
of the climate knowledge we’ve amassed over the past 100 years — a vast archive of data and wisdom that
gives us a fine-grained understanding of how the planet is warming and how we can change the
trajectory we’re on. The second is the emergence of potential solutions , the products of a half-century
of technological innovation, which may help us avert the worst impacts of the carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases we continue to release into the atmosphere . (Last year carbon dioxide emissions
were the highest ever recorded.) Almost certainly, these tools, if used wisely, could keep global average
temperatures from rising 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius, from a preindustrial
baseline. Even lesser levels of warming are probably hazardous, but that temperature is the point beyond which many scientists
believe the planet will suffer irreversible impacts from extreme and dangerous warming. Recently, the entrepreneur and
technologist Saul Griffith undertook a study of energy consumption for the Department of Energy and concluded that, using the
United States as an example, “decarbonization
is not an unattainable ideal.” In fact, he surmised it would
be far easier than one might think, given our wealth and technological know-how. We don’t
need to assume an attitude of fear and dread . Our scientific progress is a story of technological
optimism, defined by an extraordinary sense of capability. It shows what might be built and gained in the coming
decades, and not merely what could be lost. First, let’s consider this: For all the terror and gloom that global warming portends, its
discovery is one of the greatest achievements of modern science. Technology can now tell us everything  from how
many tons of ice were shed by the glaciers in Greenland over the past few years to how many millimeters the oceans rose. Indeed,
almost every fact or idea that informs the climate debate, from the number of endangered species to the dangers of melting
permafrost, results from countless scientists and engineers , working in the field and in laboratories, over the
course of a century. This knowledge derives not only from heroic human expeditions to tropics, oceans, icecaps
and deserts, but also from exquisite orbiting satellites that constantly scrutinize natural systems and
human impacts on those systems. We know how much we have to fix on this planet, because we’ve figured out how to
measure just about everything. In the past few years, some commentators have warned that modern society’s faith in
technology has led to a mistaken belief that it will save the world. They embrace solutions that encourage
widespread behavioral changes, like consuming less, traveling infrequently and adopting a plant-based diet. We’re likely
to need both technological and personal transformations. But in the end, it’s technology that will save us, not only
because it can but also because it will have to. In many respects, technology is saving us already: by identifying the
magnitude of the threat, providing the extraordinary computing power required to run climate models to predict the
future, and enabling architects and engineers to design for resilience against tempestuous storms
and encroaching seas. Technology has made possible clean and efficient energy systems  that
wouldn’t have been achievable a few decades ago, including cheap solar panels, LED lighting and batteries for electric cars. We now
have green buildings that reduce energy usage and an emerging class of solar cells known as perovskites that may greatly lower the
costs of renewable energy, and we are developing techniques to produce concrete that absorbs carbon dioxide rather than emitting
it. There is even room for techno-skeptics. A movement for “natural climate solutions,” like planting vast forests and using
agricultural methods that sequester carbon in the soil, will become increasingly important as technology in the form of “integrated
assessment” computer models tells us how much this approach can mitigate warming trends. In the coming years, moreover, our
ability to improve technology will determine the viability of carbon capture techniques to
reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide and the value (or danger) of injecting aerosols into the atmosphere to shade the
sun, cool the earth and provide more time for a clean-energy transition. The range of hypothetical geoengineering ideas for
the Arctic is equally audacious. One is to use wind power in winter to pump water from the depths of the Arctic Ocean to the
surface to thicken sea ice so that it is more resistant to melting. Sea ice is critical to cooling the planet, because it reflects sunlight
that would otherwise be absorbed by the ocean, heating it. (The downside of this idea, which underscores the scope of the problem,
is that 10 million windmills would be needed.)
 
Agroecology solves – it makes the environment resilient
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 6-20-19 (“Agroecology: Key to Agricultural Resilience
and Ecosystem Recovery,” https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-06-20/agroecology-key-to-agricultural-
resilience-and-ecosystem-recovery/, ME)
The IPCC gives us 12 years to limit global warming to 1.5˚C. The IPBES Global Assessment has revealed that nearly a million species
are on the verge of disappearance at an unprecedented rate of extinction. Climate change has become a primary cause of
biodiversity loss, while land use change is a key factor in both the climate and biodiversity crises. Both
the IPCC and IPBES
call for “transformative” change that can still reverse these catastrophic trends.  Agroecology is a
transformative approach that can galvanize a just transition away from a destructive
conventional agriculture and food system to one that builds agricultural resilience, rebuilds
ecosystems, supports localized, fair food systems and strengthens local communities. It is an
innovative process that seeks to produce significant amounts of food by maintaining and
enhancing biological and ecological processes through practices that minimize the use of external inputs, recycle
nutrients, build healthy, fertile soils and conserve moisture in the agroecosystem. Agroecology puts more power in
local farmers’ hands, in contexts where they have long been disempowered. It is built on traditional knowledge
and cultural practices, enhanced by scientific advances, and spread  through farmer-to-farmer exchanges.
The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) defines agroecology as a scientific discipline, a set of practices and a movement.
It is a dynamic concept that has evolved over decades to expand its scope from a focus on
agroecosystems—understanding field-level farming practices that rely on high agrobiodiversity— to include not only
ecological, but also socioeconomic, nutrition and even equity aspects of agriculture and food
systems. While there are many techniques intended to improve environmental sustainability and yields, agroecology is an
integrated approach to the entire agroecosystem  (rather than individual plants, animals, humans or soil
organisms). Agroecologists recognize that technological advances are essential, but that they occur in specific socioeconomic
contexts that can either reinforce or challenge inequality and environmental sustainability. Key agroecological principles, based on
experiential learning from social movements and networks of small-scale farmers, landless farmers and farmworkers, include:
Building on indigenous practices and knowledge generation, as well as empowering local farmers Recognizing women’s central roles
as seed keepers, cultivators and workers Developing
new techniques through experimentation and sharing
among farmers and workers Respecting food sovereignty—the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture
systems, allowing producers to play a lead role in innovation and placing those who produce,
distribute and consume food at the center of decisions on food systems and policies  Despite
agroecology’s successes at withstanding droughts—and hurricanes—there is a lack of awareness among decision-makers of the
significant potential of agroecology to tackle challenges related to the climate and biodiversity crises. As governments at the
UNFCCC engage in the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA) on adaptation, soils, nutrient use, manure management and
livestock systems (see points: 2.c, d, and e), it is critical that they take note of progress being made on agroecology in key U.N.
bodies and at national and sub-national levels to inform their discussions leading to an agriculture decision at COP 26 and integrate
them in KJWA. In addition, these developments in agroecology should also be a central component in
enhancing mitigation and adaptation within NDCs. Agroecology has been gaining ground in many
U.N. processes, especially those centered at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). A recent decision by the FAO’s
Committee on Agriculture (FAO 2018 COAG/2018/5) to support agroecology as a key approach to promote sustainable agriculture
and food systems has given rise to FAO’s Scaling up Agroecology Initiative (SAI 2018), which aims to support national agroecology
transition processes through policy and technical capacity that builds synergies between countries. SAI endorses the 10 elements of
agroecology that are based on seminal scientific literature and inputs over a three year process of FAO regional and international
multi-stakeholder symposiums (2015-2018). The
Initiative will develop, implement and continuously
improve tools, instruments and guidance  documents for leading national agroecological transitions through alliance
building, co-creation of knowledge and knowledge sharing. (See also five principles of agroecology and five levels of agroecological
transitions.) In addition, the U.N. Committee on World Food Security (CFS) (the foremost inclusive intergovernmental and
international mechanism on food security and nutrition) requested its High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) in 2017 to elaborate on
agroecological approaches and other innovations for building sustainable food systems that enhance food and nutrition security.
This HLPE #14 report will be released in Rome in July 2019, and its recommendations will be taken up for consideration in October
2019 during the CFS annual meeting. A set of CFS decisions are expected in 2020. Decisions from the CFS would not only guide
national policies on food and agriculture and contribute to informed national debates on food sovereignty and the right to food, but
also help guide the three Rome-based U.N. food agencies in their regional and country level program development. The KJWA
process should in no way undermine the progress being made in these other fora on agroecology and should seek to incorporate the
benefits of agroecology in both international and national level climate policy on agriculture.
A review of scientific
literature examining social and economic indicators in 42 studies showed that adopting
agroecological practices increased yields (in 60% of comparisons), labor productivity (100% of
comparisons) and farm profitability (56% of comparisons), and decreased labor demand (75% of comparisons,
likely resulting from an increase in yield and labor productivity). Because of its emphasis on minimal external
inputs, instead recycling nutrients through a reliance on biological processes and
agrobiodiversity, agroecological practices can be labor intensive but not necessarily cash
intensive. This is an area for further research as the social and economic performance of agroecology and its indicators are not as
well-documented as its impacts on farming communities and other practitioners. Agroecology increases production in
ways that enhance biodiversity and nutritional diversity due to a reliance on integrated cropping
systems rather than unsustainable and intensive monocrop production. This diversified
approach also reduces vulnerability to biotic and abiotic stress from weather and disease . The
advantages of this approach were conclusively demonstrated  in the 2008 International Assessment of
Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a multi-year study involving hundreds of experts and
several U.N. agencies. The findings were re-substantiated in a report submitted in 2010 to the U.N. Human Rights Council by the U.N.
Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter. It showed the additional value of agroecology, not only for fast progress
in the realization of the right to food for vulnerable groups in various environments, but also for economic development. The report
called for appropriate public policies to create an enabling environment. The KJWA should build upon these and
other international
processes that are well underway . A number of national and regional
governments are also moving forward with policy and funding support to institutionalize and
operationalize agroecology. Parties participating in the KJWA should take the time to understand what their own
governments are doing with regards to research and support for the expansion, operationalization and implementation of
agroecology. They can learn from and build upon current international, national and subnational processes. At a minimum, the
discussions and any actions taken through the KJWA must not undermine the enormous potential of agroecology to meet
international climate and food security goals.
Neg -- UQ
UQ -- DH High
 UQ -- High Now
The U.S Dollar is unmatched - making up a majority of the world’s reserve
Velina 1/9
Janelle Velina Posted in Capital, Currency, Dollar, economy, Empire, Finance, Foreign Policy,
history, imperialism, International Relations, Trade, USA January 9, 2019/https://llco.org/the-
global-hegemony-of-the-u-s-dollar-a-brief-history///dvb
Since the United States entered into the Second World War considerably late, it did not suffer as much damage or casualties as other countries had. It
also helped that its geographical location kept its cities from suffering the infrastructural damage seen across cities in Europe and Asia. This, in part,
helped the American Empire to replace the British Empire (although Britain is still an imperial power) as the global hegemon, especially when the

American economy took less time to recover in comparison. And so began the all-conquering march of the U.S. Dollar,
undoubtedly the American Empire’s most powerful expression of its global domination and
global monopoly.
As per requirements during WWII, most of Europe under a war economy had to import its consumer goods. The United States,
which had yet to enter into the War, was readily available to trade consumer goods with Europe for gold; and it had done the same
in the First World War, to which it was also a latecomer. In other words, over the course of the two World Wars, it had been
accumulating these gold reserves so that by 1944 it acquired two-thirds of the world’s reserves , thus
overwhelming Europe’s markets with dollar loans . Having gained the economic and
monetary upper-hand, the U.S. sought to make the Dollar the world’s reserve currency . In that
same year, the Bretton Woods Conference — also known as the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference — reached an
agreement on a series of new rules for the post-WWII international monetary system, leading to the creation of the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). In other words, almost every
currency in the world was required to be tied to the Dollar at a fixed rate , and the Dollar could only
be tied to gold. This catapulted the United States to global superpower status.
While its client states (such as South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Colombia) and its support for proxy forces were the worldwide
economic and military fronts of its power projection platform, the Dollar was the international monetary facet. With Western
European powers indebted to the U.S. Dollar, the U nited S tates was free to spread its influence
throughout their states and their politics , helping them to crush many of the communist and labour movements
within their own countries. It also helped to seal the Western European states’ alliances with the United States with the shared goal
of destroying the Soviet Union, as well as uniting in attacking other countries in Eastern Europe and countries in the Global South
that refused to allow U.S. capital into their countries.

~ US dollar is 62% of FER, 90% of trading occurs in USD - Over one third of the
global GDP is accounted for by the nations that peg their currencies to the
dollar.
TK 6/25
Team Kalkine is a team of research analysts providing a high-end content covering industry
news, market commentaries, specific company announcements/ updates, result releases, and
stock price movements while also touching upon market catalysts at a global level relating to
demographics and key economic indicators. June 25 2019.
https://kalkinemedia.com/2019/06/25/europe-and-china-colluding-to-challenge-the-us-dollar-
hegemony///dvb
As of the third quarter of 2018 (Q3 2018), US dollar accounted for approximately 62% of all the known

central bank foreign exchange reserves . Euro is the second closest reserve currency and made up for 21% of
the known central bank foreign currency reserves in Q3 2018.
The Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER) is depicted in the
chart below .

The relative strength of the US economy fortifies the status of dollar as the de facto global
currency. It is accepted for trade and transactions throughout the world . US bills worth $ 580 billion
are used outside the country, which represents around 65% of all the dollars and most of these bills
may be found in Latin America and former countries of the Soviet Union .
Over one third of the global GDP is accounted for by the nations that peg their currencies to
dollar . As far as the foreign exchange market is concerned, around 90% of forex trading occurs in USD .
Besides, around 40% of the world’s debt is also issued in dollars which causes foreign banks to need sufficient
dollars to conduct businesses.
The significance of USD was also confirmed by the scenario during the 2008 financial crisis.
Even recently in 2017, the banks of Germany, Japan, France and the United Kingdom held more liabilities termed in dollars than in
their own currencies.

The USD contributed to about 7 trillion reserving up to 62% of the GFE

Richter 7/1
Wolf Richter is the founder, Wolf Street Corp, publisher of WOLF STREET. July 1 2019/
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/07/01/us-dollar-status-as-global-reserve-currency-q1-2019///dvb
Total global foreign exchange reserves in all currencies ticked up to $11.4 trillion in the first
quarter 2019, according to the IMF’s just released COFER data. USD-denominated exchange reserves rose
to $6.74 trillion, with their share of g lobal f oreign e xchange reserves ticking up to 61.8%. These
are USD-denominated financial assets (US Treasury securities, corporate bonds, etc.) that central banks
other than the Fed are holding in their foreign exchange reserves. The Fed’s own holdings of USD-
denominated assets, such as its Treasury securities and Mortgage-Backed Securities acquired as part of QE, are not included in
“foreign exchange reserves.”
UQ -- DH Stable
 Generic
Dollar hegemony is stable
Lloyd 6/4 (Colin Lloyd, macroeconomic commenters, writer and presenter,
contributor to several free market publications. 4 June 2019. "U.S. Dollar
Supremacy Could Quickly Fade". American Institute for Economic
Research.https://www.aier.org/article/us-dollar-supremacy-could-quickly-fade)
Being and remaining a reserve currency is closely tied to four broad factors: the amount of non-
domestic debt denominated in your currency, the value and volume of cross-border contractual
obligations which designate your currency as the medium of exchange, the amount of currency
reserves in issue, and perhaps an arcane proposition in a fiat currency world, the international
desirability of your currency as a store of value. The US dollar currently commands this privilege .
It was by no means the first reserve currency ; the Roman Denari was used throughout their empire in ancient
times, during the middle ages, the Venetian Ducato and Florentine Florin gained credence. The US dollar’s predecessor,
Sterling, achieved its time in office as a result the decline of French dominance after the
Napoleonic Wars. British trade flourished and with it the merchants’ needs finance. The discount
houses of Lombard Street, insurance brokers of Lloyd’s coffee house and even the stock jobbers’ of Change Alley swiftly responded,
creating the necessary financial instruments for Sterling to emerge as the preeminent currency
of international trade and finance. You will note that trade followed by finance, for that is how the relationship began,
with trade as the master and finance the servant. The passing of the baton from the UK to the US resulted from two disastrous and
expensive world wars and the subsequent demise of British Empire and influence. As part of the Bretton Woods agreement, under
the gold exchange standard, the US dollar became the instrument of conversion whilst it was pegged to gold at US$35/oz. By the
1960s, however, cracks were beginning to show. These economic conflicts between short-term, domestic and long-term,
international objectives, for the manager of the reserve currency, were first defined by Robert Triffin. In 1971 Triffin’s dilemma
became reality with the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement. Oil,
notionally blamed for the collapse, was, by
this stage, no longer priced in Sterling but in US dollars. Gold was gone but the vast trade in oil
allowed the US dollar to retain its position through its sheer volume of transactions. A mixture of
inertia (what economists call a network externality), military might and relative value (when
compared with more inflation-bent regimes) rendered the US dollar still supreme. In a 2016 essay for
Brookings - The dollar’s international role: An “exorbitant privilege”? former Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, highlighted
the following factors
which have allowed the Dollar to maintain its position: Stability of value. Since
the mid-1980s, the Fed has done a good job keeping inflation low and stable. Liquidity. U.S.
financial markets, especially the U.S. Treasury market, are the deepest and most liquid in the
world… Safety. Despite Congressional shenanigans surrounding the debt limit, there is a large
supply of dollar assets considered to be very safe, including Treasury securities… Lender of last
resort. The Fed served as a backstop provider of dollars during the financial crisis by instituting
currency swaps with fourteen central banks, including four in emerging markets . Whilst many years of
research has been undertaken in an attempt to calculate the value of being the reserve currency, Barry Eichengreen description is
most succinct: "It costs only a few cents for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to produce a $100 bill, but other countries had to
pony up $100 of actual goods in order to obtain one."

No US dollar collapse anywhere in the near future

Watson 15 (Patrick Watson - a compulsive trend-observer and senior economic analyst.
Patrick specializes in a global macro perspective, “Why Not to Worry about a US Dollar Collapse”
– Mauldin Economics, https://www.mauldineconomics.com/resources/why-not-to-worry-
about-a-us-dollar-collapse)
In a world without fixed exchange rates, a nation can gain an advantage by manipulating its currency so that the value appears
lower. This makes exports seem less expensive to foreign buyers while discouraging imports. The US has played this game
masterfully in recent decades—keeping the dollar low while still importing mass quantities of goods from abroad. Something
changed in the last few years, though. The chart below shows the US Dollar Index, which tracks the dollar’s value against a basket of
other major currencies. Notice how it shot higher in the last half of 2014 and then stabilized in a much higher range in 2015. The US
Federal Reserve’s decision to end its “QE3” stimulus program, A
major reduction in US oil imports as domestic
shale production soared, The European Central Bank’s move to ease the continent’s debt crisis
with new stimulus, and A massive devaluation of the Japanese yen. Compared to other world currencies, the US dollar is
hardly collapsing. It is strengthening, and no other currency shows signs of catching up. Some currencies, no doubt, will collapse in
the coming decades, but the dollar is way down the list. How can this be? Ironically, cutting all ties to gold actually
helps the dollar. Currency values are always relative to another currency. That means it is mathematically impossible for every
currency to lose value. When you sell currency A (whatever it is), you must simultaneously buy currency B. That means some
currency will always be on top of the pile... even if the pile is sinking. The
dollar has stayed relatively strong, despite
US economic problems, because other currencies look even worse . Many foreign investors see
the US as an island of stability in a storm-tossed world. They want to own dollar-denominated
assets. That keeps the dollar strong. For example, look at this chart showing the US dollar exchange rate against the
Japanese yen over the last five years. In 2012, before the Bank of Japan launched its latest stimulus program, it only took around 80
yen to buy a dollar. By mid-2015, the rate was over 120 yen to the dollar. If you are an American investor worried about the dollar,
imagine how this must look to Japanese investors. They might gladly trade places with you, if they could get dollars in exchange. The
same applies, more or less, to all other currencies. The
dollar looks more attractive than the home currencies
of many foreign investors. Anything can happen in the short term , of course, but a dollar
collapse is unlikely in this environment.
 AT Squo Replacement
US dollar hegemony cannot be replaced
Anderson 18 (Anthony Anderson - Enhanced corporate culture via education in the
numismatic fields that we served while becoming a member of the American Numismatic
Association, Industry Council For Tangible Assets, “Currency Wars: Countries Reduce Dollar
Dependence”, https://gsiexchange.com/currency-wars-countries-reduce-dollar-dependence/)
There is an alarming trend in which more and more countries are seeking to gain independence
from the US dollar. Here’s what’s been happening lately: Last week, Iran announced its plans to adopt the euro in place of the
dollar as its main currency for international exchange. A few months ago, Venezuela attempted to launch an oil-backed
cryptocurrency. Earlier this year, China introduced the first ever yuan-denominated oil contracts; a successful event that raised the
yuan’s status on the international stage. In the meantime, Russia has been actively increasing its gold reserves. Their primary goal is
not only to end dollar dependence but to end the US dollar’s global dominance. Despite
their efforts, none of them
have come close to dethroning the dollar’s global status. Amid tensions between the US and
other nations, including its allies, and Trump’s preference for a strong dollar, some analysts
believe that the countries maneuvering against the dollar are looking to exploit the
opportunities presented by this current state of geopolitical unease. Attempts to replace the
dollar have been made several times in the past. All attempts have failed.

Dollar heg high and economists project it to stay that way – empirics prove
yuan and euro don’t stand a chance
Pritchard 16
Evans Pritchard 2016 [Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the Telegraph, “AEP: Dollar hegemony
endures as share of global transactions keeps rising”, The Telegraph///dvb
The US dollar is tightening its grip on the global financial system at the expense of the euro,
entrenching American hegemony and rendering the US Federal Reserve more powerful than
at any time in history. Newly-released data from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) show that the dollar’s share
of the $5.1 trillion in foreign exchange trades each day has continued rising to 87.6pc of all transactions. It is the latest evidence
confirming the extraordinary resilience of the dollar-based international order, confounding expectations of US financial decline a
decade ago. Roughly 60pc of the global economy is either in the dollar zone or closely tied to it through currency pegs or ‘dirty
floats’, and the level of debt issued in dollars outside US jurisdiction has soared to $9 trillion. This has profound implications for
monetary policy. The Fed has become the world’s central bank whether it likes it or not, setting
borrowing costs for much of the global system. The BIS data shows that the volume of transactions in which the
euro was on one side of the trade has slipped to 31.3pc from 37pc in 2007. The dollar share has ratcheted up to 87.6pc over the
same period. It is much the same picture for the foreign exchange reserves of central banks, a good barometer of global trust. The
dollar share has recovered to 63.6pc, roughly where it was a decade ago. The Fed has become the world’s central bank whether it
likes it or not, setting borrowing costs for much of the global system The euro share has tumbled over the last eight years from 28pc
to 20.4pc, and is barely above Deutsche Mark share in the early 1990s. “There are no foreseeable rivals to the
dollar as a viable reserve currency,” said Eswar Prasad from Cornell University, author of “The Dollar Trap: How the
US Dollar Tightened Its Grip on Global Finance”. “The US is hard to beat. The US has deep financial markets, a

powerful central bank and legal framework the rest of the world has a great deal of trust in ,”
he said. The eurozone is crippled by the lack of a unified EU treasury, joint bond issuance, and a genuine banking union to back up
the currency. It would require a change in the German constitution to open the way for fiscal union, an unthinkable prospect in the
current political climate . Neither the euro nor the yuan have succeeded in displacing the dollar. “There
are existential questions about the euro. The tensions pulling monetary union apart have not been resolved. It not going to
challenge the dollar even if it does get its economic act together, and that doesn’t look likely,” he said. Prof Prasad, former head of
the International Monetary Fund’s China desk, said the Chinese yuan is gaining global currency share steadily - at the cost of the
euro – but it would be decades before it comes of age. First China has to tame its $27 trillion credit bubble and break out of the
middle-income trap, weaning its economy from investment-led catch-up growth on steroids. He said the Communist system had
become even more rigid under president Xi Jinping, raising the risk that social and political order “might unravel suddenly and
dramatically,” in the event of an economic shock. With hindsight it is clear that the US was never as weak as it looked in the
aftermath of the Lehman crisis in 2008, when China seemed to be walking tall and much of the emerging world was in a secular
commodity boom. The pendulum has since swung back. Zero rates and quantitative easing by the Fed flooded emerging markets
with dollar liquidity, leading to credit booms that have mostly ended painfully over the last for years. The shale revolution in the US
and the revival of its energy intensive industries have eliminated much of America’s current account deficit. The US Treasury’s
draconian policies forced a quick clean-up of the US banking industry, in stark contrast to years of debilitating drift in Europe. The
20pc surge in the dollar index since mid-2014 has silenced any serious talk of a dollar crisis, and revealed just how painful this can be
for emerging markets. “ The world is more reliant on the dollar than ever before. I don’t think
people appreciate this enough,” said Stephen Jen from Eurizon SLJ Capital.
NEG -- AT Thumpers
**Top Level **
 Generic
Their thumpers aren’t real disruptions of monetary hegemony – just examples
of new shifts in the same system, since large external imbalances threatening
global finance have existed since the late 90’s.
Brown 2016 [Stuart S. Brown is a Professor of Practice and Vice Chair, Public Administration
and International Affairshttps. Global Imbalanes, Currency Wars, and U.S. Monetary Hegemony.
September 2016. www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/parcc/news/S.%20Brown-%20Final
%20Paper.pdf]
Six years into the recovery from the Great Recession its underlying causes remain contentious. One candidate for core contributor
has been less prominently featured in the popular press - global financial imbalances between chronic current account surplus and
deficit countries. Moreover, macroeconomists have ascribed the recent crisis besetting the European
Monetary Union (EMU) to similarly outsized imbalances between surplus countries like
Germany, Finland and the Netherlands, on the one hand, and deficit countries such as Spain,
Portugal and Greece, on the other (Pettis, 2013; Wolf, 2014; King, 2016).
Seeking the fundamental cause for the Great Recession, and for the subsequent EMU crisis, in intercountry
trade and financial imbalances is understandable. Large external imbalances among key countries and

regions have persisted since the late-1990’s – for the Eurozone since the 2000’s – widening in the run-up to the

crisis. Yet, correlation is not causation and the argument linking the financial crisis to trade (financial) imbalances is

hardly air-tight. YNT. Nor is it self-evident that the

Achilles heel of the international monetary and financial
system then and now lies in net capital flows and the asymmetry of macroeconomic
adjustment between surplus and deficit countries , respectively. For example, a distinct challenge to
the international monetary system lies in its (in)ability to cope with the explosion of gross foreign
assets and liabilities . Does the global financial crisis owe more to the heightened pace of financial globalization writ large,
rather than intercountry imbalances more specifically?
This paper argues that the central conflict that galvanizes the international community over today’s global
monetary and financial architecture combines these twin developments – the persistence of large net
directional cross-border flows and the accumulation of large gross external financial claims . Of particular
concern is how these features intersect with reference to the world’s leading economy. The centrality of the United
States’ public-cum-private financial sector has been a feature of the global system since the end of World
War II. It assumed new shape with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system beginning in 1971
and proceeding all the way up to the Great Recession. The causes and aftermath of the Great Recession moreover place US
monetary and financial dominance in fresh perspective. In essence, conflict over the contours of the international monetary and
financial system (IMFS) overwhelmingly centers on the special structural position occupied by the United States.
 Default Key
Dollar hegemony is stable – the US is able to sustain itself so long as the dollar
is a good currency safe from default – the plan destroys that, but the thumpers
do not
Fields & Vernengo '11 [David Fields and Matias Verengo are writers for the Levy Economics
Institute at Bard College. Hegemonic Currencies during the Crisis: The Dollar versus the Euro in a
Cartalist Perspective. April 2011. www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_666.pdf]
This paper suggests that the dollar is not threatened as the hegemonic international currency, and that
most analysts are incapable of understanding the resilience of the dollar, not only because
they ignore the theories of monetary hegemonic stability or what, more recently, has been termed the
geography of money; but also as a result of an incomplete understanding of what a monetary hegemon does. The hegemon
is not required to maintain credible macroeconomic policies (i.e., fiscally contractionary policies to maintain
the value of the currency), but rather to provide an asset free of the risk of default . It is argued that the current

crisis in Europe illustrates why the euro is not a real contender for hegemony in the near
future.
 Oil Retal Key
Dollar hegemony is contingent on OPEC oil – other considerations pale in
comparison – thumpers are tiny in relation to this cornerstone of the dollar-
denominated financial system
Springthorpe '13 [Luke Springthorpe is a Graduate from the University of Manchester with a
BA Hons in History & Politics. He currently works in Private Client Wealth Management for
Charles Stanley PLC and is the Editor of Crossbow magazine for the Bow Group. The Hegemony
of the US Dolar. April 8. 2013. https://www.e-ir.info/2013/04/08/the-hegemony-of-the-us-
dollar/.]
Over recent years, the debate surrounding dollar hegemony has faced a renewed revival in a manner that ties in with broader
speculation about the future of the USA’s global role. Not since Robert Keohane’s “After Hegemony” (1983) has the debate been
quite as lively academically.
Of late, the spotlight has increasingly focused on the continued role of the dollar in global finance. There are those, such as Barry
Eichengreen, who have speculated the dollar’s “reign is near an end”. The case for why this may actually be beneficial has gained
traction since a UN report which sought to make the case for an overhaul to the global reserve system.[1] They are by no means in a
minority. I argue, however, that there is reason to believe that there are important
considerations relating to both governance and the strength of US institutions - both
governmental and financial- that mean the end of the dollar’s crucial role in the global
financial system may not be as imminent as some are forecasting.
This is, of course, a discussion that is intertwined with considerations regarding the future of broader US influence. In this article, I
shall consider the key conditions that have maintained dollar hegemony , and criteria to be met by any
challengers who may seek for their own domestic currency to enjoy what is coined the “exorbitant privilege”[2] of reserve currency
status.
There is little doubt that the outcome of any transition from dollar dominance would be
significant, and would represent a wider shift in the balance of power. With international goods and
commodities priced in the dominant reserve currency, the US dollar, the movements of other currencies relative to the reserve
currency have a very real impact. The 2008 decline in sterling against the dollar[3] highlights exactly
this . A bout of inflation followed, putting upward pressure on a whole range of commodities,
the most important being food and petrol. If the value of the domestic currency isn’t what
concerns the majority of citizens, you can bet that the cost of a basket of commonly
purchased goods is.
So, what makes a currency ‘dominant’ as a reserve currency and what exactly is it used for? In the reserve sense, we only consider
how much of a given currency (or denominated assets) sits in the vaults of central banks. In a wider respect, however, it would also
include the currency which international companies predominantly use to price their exports, and the currency which the majority of
commodities are priced in. In each of the aforementioned, the US YNT dollar is still very much the most significant currency and
accounts for approximately 62% of official foreign exchange reserves- up from 59% in 1995.[4] What is also striking is that although
the US only accounts for approximately 15% of global trade[5], the dollar accounts for 84.9% of daily foreign exchange transactions.
[6]The reason being that almost all intra-state trade for goods be it oil from OPEC states , or
wine exports from Chile sold to Japanese buyers, the transaction is likely to be completed in
dollars. All this is despite over a decade of forecasts over its demise; it was previously
hypothesised the Euro would replace the dollar– or at least achieve equal status, for example.
The reasons for the dollar’s continued dominance, despite a financial crisis in 2008 and a ballooning deficit are a textbook case study
of political economy.
First and foremost, there are the economic factors that contribute to continued dollar hegemony. Perhaps most significant is the
fact that the USA has by far the largest and most liquid market for the assets denominated in its currency. The debt issuance by the
US Treasury is substantial, meaning there are plenty of Treasury Bills and other ‘risk free’ assets which can be held by foreign central
banks (thus solving the so-called Triffin Dilemma[7]). Whilst the Eurozone has a similarly large economy, it has no asset that is similar
in its nature to US Treasury stock; that is, mutually guaranteed by the entity as a whole, rather than just a single member state.
While Euro denominated assets are plentiful, their quality varies from one member state to
another.
The dollar is also complemented by the sheer size of the US economy. The USA remains the world’s
largest economy and imports vast quantities of goods. As such, those wishing to sell their goods to the USA will have to do so on the
terms of US companies, part of which is likely to mean invoicing in dollars. The US also has the benefit of better growth prospects
over most of Europe, and a more open economy than China in a number of important regards. Both of these factors combined
ensure the USA is still seen as the most attractive large economy for investors. It also means US
assets are easily tradable and have lower bid-ask price spreads.
Politically, the comparative stability of the USA is also a contributing factor. Even in the face of a
recent downgrade, US Treasury Stock still commands a large degree of confidence in the market given its long and unblemished
track record. Those investing in other dollar assets can also be assured that any US assets are unlikely to be unfairly seized by the
state or affected by uneven enforcement of the law.
AT BRICs
 Top Level
BRICS hasn’t dismantled dollar hegemony – its countries are indebted and
highly reliant on dollar-dominated institutions. Those who claim it might
dethrone the U.S. dollar are utterly divorced from reality.
Chossudovsky '18 [Michel Chossudovsky is a Canadian economist and author who works for
the Centre for Research on Globalization. BRICS and the Fiction of “De-Dollarization”. July 24,
2018. https://www.globalresearch.ca/brics-and-the-fiction-of-de-dollarization-2/5441301.]
There has been a lot of media hype regarding BRICS.
While the creation of BRICS has significant geopolitical implications, both the AIIB as well as
the proposed BRICS Development Bank (NDB) and its Contingency Reserve Arrangement (CRA)
are dollar denominated entities . Unless they are coupled with a multi-currency system of trade and credit, they do not
threaten dollar hegemony. Quite the opposite, they tend to sustain and extend dollar
denominated lending . Moreover, they replicate several features the Bretton Woods framework.
Towards a Multi-Currency Arrangement?
What is significant, however, from a geopolitical standpoint is that China and Russia are developing a ruble-yuan YNT swap, negotiated between the
Russian Central Bank, and the People’s Bank of China,
The situation of the other three BRICS member states (Brazil, India, South Africa) with regard to the implementation of (real, rand rupiah) currency
swaps is markedly different. These three highly indebted countries
are in the straightjacket of IMF-World Bank
conditionalities. They do not decide on fundamental issues of monetary policy and macro-
economic reform without the green light from the Washington based international financial
institutions .
Currency swaps between the BRICS central banks was put forth by Russia to:
“facilitate trade financing while completely bypassing the dollar. “At the same time, the new system will also act as a de facto replacement of the IMF,
because it will allow the members of the alliance to direct resources to finance the weaker countries.” (Voice of Russia)
While Russia
has formally raised the issue of a multi-currency arrangement , the Development
Bank’s structure does not currently “officially” acknowledge such a framework :
“We are discussing with China and our BRICS parters the establishment of a system of multilateral swaps that will allow to transfer resources to one or
another country, if needed. A part of the currency reserves can be directed to [the new system]” (Governor of the Russian Central Bank, June 2014,
Prime news agency)
Currency Dictatorship. The Struggle to End US Dollar Hegemony

India, South Africa and Brazil have decided not to go along with a multiple currency
arrangement , which would have allowed for the development of bilateral trade and investment activities between BRICs countries, operating
outside the realm of dollar denominated credit. In fact they did not have the choice of making this decision in view of the strict loan conditionalities
imposed by the IMF.

Heavily indebted under the brunt of their external creditors, all three countries are faithful
pupils of the IMF-World Bank. The central bank of these countries is controlled by Wall
Street and the IMF . For them to enter into a “non-dollar” or an “anti-dollar” development
banking arrangement with multiple currencies, would have required prior approval of the
IMF.
The Contingency Reserve Arrangement
The CRA is defined as a “framework for provision of support through liquidity and precautionary instruments in response to actual or potential short-
term balance of payments pressures.” (Russia India Report April 7, 2015). In this context, the CRA fund does not constitute a “safety net” for BRICS
countries, it accepts the hegemony of the US dollar which is sustained by large scale speculative operations in the currency and commodity markets.
In essence the CRA operates in a similar fashion to an IMF precautionary loan arrangement (e.g. Brazil November 1998) with a view to enabling highly
indebted countries to maintain the parity of their exchange rate to the US dollar, by replenishing central bank reserves through borrowed money.
The CRA excludes the policy option of foreign exchange controls by BRICS member states. In the case of India, Brazil and South Africa, this option is
largely foreclosed as a result of their agreements with the IMF.
The dollar denominated $100 billion CRA fund is a “silver platter” for Western “institutional
speculators” including JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Goldman Sachs et al, which are involved in short selling operations on the Forex
market. Ultimately the CRA fund will finance the speculative onslaught in the currency market.
Neoliberalism firmly entrenched
An arrangement using national currencies instead of the US dollar requires sovereignty in central bank monetary policy. In many regards, India, Brazil
and South Africa are (from the monetary standpoint) US proxy states, firmly aligned with IMF-World Bank-WTO economic diktats.
It is worth recalling that since 1991, India’s macroeconomic policy was under under the control of the Bretton Woods institutions, with a former World
Bank official, Dr. Manmohan Singh, serving first as Finance Minister and subsequently as Prime Minister.
Moreover, while
India is an ally of China and Russia under BRICS, it has entered into a new
defense cooperation deal with the Pentagon which is (unofficially) directed against Russia and China. It is also cooperating with the
US in aerospace technology. India constitutes the largest market (after Saudi Arabia) for the sale of US weapons systems. And all these

transactions are in US dollars.

The BRICS bank is a pathetic excuse of a challenge to the dollar’s hegemony – it

operates using USD and its supporters are themselves deeply invested in the
dollar.
Steil '14 [Benn Steil is director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Brics bank is a feeble strike against dollar hegemony. October 1, 2014.
https://www.ft.com/content/3c84425c-48a9-11e4-9d04-00144feab7de.]
The new financial institutions announced by the Brics nations in July – a development bank and
an arrangement to share currency reserves – have been compared by many observers to the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund.
There is no doubt that they reflect frustration in the developing world over governance at the
multilateral institutions that emerged from the Bretton Woods summit 70 years ago. These
remain dominated by the US and western Europe despite their relative economic decline. In truth, however , the new
initiatives break little ground .
President Vladimir Putin of Russia has said the Brics countries want to end the international monetary
system’s dependence on the policy of US authorities. If so, they are off to a poor start . Whereas
only 10 per cent of the World Bank’s paid-in capital was contributed in dollars, all the start-up funding for the Brics bank will
be in greenbacks , creating new demand for dollar assets .
Brazil, Russia, India and China could mitigate this problem by pooling the $5.1tn in foreign exchange reserves they hold between
them. A shared stock of reserves could be considerably smaller, and still provide an ample buffer against a balance of payments
crisis. This would allow participating countries to avoid the conditions attached to IMF/YNT loans.
Mr Putin claims the so-called contingent reserve arrangement, under which each country would have conditional access to others’
foreign reserves, “creates the foundation for an effective protection of our national economies from a crisis in financial markets”.
In fact, it is far too small for this purpose, and it is barred from making big loans without IMF involvement. China can borrow $6.2bn
without approval from the fund; for the other participants the number is smaller. This is chicken feed. The IMF approved $38bn in
loans to Russia in the 1990s, and $15bn in standby credit to Brazil in 2002. Net private financial flows to emerging markets today are
about 10 times what they were in 2002, meaning that even larger loans would now be needed in similar crises. Mr Putin knows this,
which is why Russia currently holds over $400bn in foreign exchange reserves.
The natural riposte is that the Brics are only just beginning their collaboration. But beefing up the fledgling institutions will not be
simple. The 13-member Chiang Mai initiative, created after the 1997 Asia crisis, has yet to commit a dime to mutual assistance –
despite in theory having created a pool of $240bn in combined reserves. Members can call on significant funds only if they are
subject to the surveillance (and stigma) entailed by an IMF programme. Governments in the region remain hesitant to extend credit
to one another during crises. The Brics countries, even more disparate, will share this reluctance.
As for development financing, funds for basic infrastructure and healthcare in poor countries could do much good. But the founders
of the new bank risk being carried away by their own hyperbole.
India and China are the World Bank’s biggest
borrowers – and therefore its biggest beneficiaries. Together with Brazil, they have $66bn in
outstanding loans, a third more than the entire initial subscribed capital of the new Brics
bank.
The Brics leaders have rightly been critical of the US Congress for failing to reform the IMF . But
their own bank is hardly more democratic . The World Bank’s 37 founding members now command less than half of
the votes in that institution’s governing body. The Brics bank’s articles of agreement accord its founding members a permanent
minimum voting share of 55 per cent – irrespective of how its membership evolves.
This is not to say that the world should be satisfied with the legacy of Bretton Woods. But it
does illustrate how difficult it is to improve on it.
AT Takeover
 General
Dollar hegemony strong and stable EVEN as multiple currencies attempt
to take over
Costigan 18 (Thomas Costigan, 7-6-2018, “The US dollar and it’s challenges ”,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wusa.12339)
Since World War Two, the United States dollar became and remains the global reserve currency. This status in international trade
and investment has given the US the ability to exercise hegemonic power around the world. In recent years , there have been
attempts by competitor nations notably China, Russia, and Iran to replace the dollar's exclusivity in
bilateral trade . Their intention is to undermine the ability of the US to continue as the world's
hegemon . It is argued that this outcome is unlikely to be achieved in the near term , because of the
continuing reliance on the US dollar.
 AT China
China doesn’t thump and never will – its currency is puny compared to the
dollar and despite its industrial strength, it has failed miserably to establish the
RMB as a serious contender.
Richter 4/26 [Wolf Richter is the founder of Wolf Street Corp, publisher of WOLF STREET, and
worked in Texas and Oklahoma, including a decade as General Manager and COO of a large Ford
dealership and its subsidiaries. China Tries to Muscle in on Dollar as Dominant ‘Payments
Currency,’ But It’s a Thankless Slog. April 26, 2019. https://wolfstreet.com/2019/04/26/china-
tries-to-muscle-in-on-us-dollar-as-payments-currency-but-its-a-tough-thankless-slog/]
Dollar Hegemony is a tough nut to crack.
China is taking another baby step in promoting the internationalization of the renminbi and
nibble on the hegemony of the US dollar: It’s pushing a proposal to add a pile of yuan to the $240 billion currency
swap agreement between ASEAN plus China, Japan, and South Korea, in order reduce the system’s reliance on the US dollar and to
enhance its own economic clout in the region, according to the Nikkei.
On May 2, the finance ministers and central bankers of ASEAN – Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Thailand,
Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar – along with those from China, Japan, and Korea will meet in
Fiji to discuss modifications to the swap agreement, the Chiang Mai Initiative.
China, which co-chairs the meeting with Thailand, has added language to the draft joint statement concerning use of Asian-currency
contributions to the pool – which for now is still entirely in dollars – as “one option” to enhance the swap arrangement.
“Allowing participants to access Asian currencies in an emergency could encourage their use in other contexts, including foreign
exchange reserves, the thinking goes,” the Nikkei said. “The idea also anticipates a long-term rise in demand for these currencies in
regional investment and trade.”
“China in particular sees it as another step on the path to internationalizing the yuan and
expanding its economic influence in the region. But the proposal is likely to be complicated by U.S. alarm at
the prospect of Beijing expanding its currency’s role at the dollar’s expense.”
The Chiang Mai Initiative was a response to the 1997 Asian currency crisis. It consists of a pool of US dollars, contributed by
members, that members can draw on when their currencies come under attack. Since its establishment in 2000, the dollar pool has
been increased to $240 billion. China is now lobbying the other members to add yuan and yen to that pool.
This is just one more effort by China to internationalize its currency, which has been a tough and
thankless slog so far, despite the size of the Chinese economy and its giant weight in the
global economic fabric.
In terms of global reserve currency, the renminbi (RMB) has a share of only 1.9% , in fifth place, and
barely ahead of the Canadian dollar, but miles behind the US dollar (61.7%) and the euro
(20.7%). Over the past two years, the RMB has made only microscopic headway as a reserve currency.
And as an international payments currency, the RMB has failed similarly to crack the co-hegemony of the
dollar and the euro.
“With more than 1,900 financial institutions now using the RMB for payments with China and Hong Kong, the internationalization of
RMB carries great strategic significance” for banks and financial institutions, gushes SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank
Financial Telecommunication), which tracks the progress of the RMB as payment currency.
But in March 2019, the RMB had a minuscule share of merely 1.22% for international cross-border
payments by value (cross-border payments from one Eurozone country to another Eurozone country are excluded). This
minuscule share put the RMB in 8th position, just behind the Swiss franc :
Two years ago, in March 2017, the RMB’s share had been 1.05%. In other words , in two years, the share of the RMB
had ticked up by a whopping 17 basis points , from 1.05% to 1.22%. At this pace – about 8.5 basis points per year –
the RMB will reach a share of 3% by 2040.
Meanwhile, the dollar’s share increased to 45.58%, from 45.44% two years ago; and the euro’s share increased to 32.80%, from
32.28% two years ago. So by this measure, and for this time span, the
RMB made minuscule progress against
smaller currencies but lost ground against the dollar and euro.
So chipping away at the dollar-euro co-hegemony as payments currencies will take some patience and lots of baby steps, such as
China’s efforts to add yuan to the swap arrangement under the Chiang Mai Initiative.
The troubled internationalization of the RMB YNT was topic of a 2018 report by SWIFT’s Chief Executive of APAC & EMEA, Alain Raes,
looking back on 2017, when the RMB internationalization had actually backtracked.
On one hand, its internationalization was supported by major trends, such as:
The growth of cashless payments, “mainly driven by the digital giants Alipay and WeChat Pay”
“The far-reaching Belt & Road Initiative”
“The globalization of Chinese banks and their adoption of SWIFT gpi”
“The progress of China’s Cross-border Interbank Payment System (CIPS).”
On the other hand, there was this: “Despite these trends, there
are a number of critical success factors
necessary for widespread adoption of the RMB.”
And that’s where it gets tough. The headwinds the RMB faces “in the short term” include “capital controls
imposed by the Chinese government” and “ongoing concerns over the Chinese currency’s
depreciation.
The report sees the Belt and Road Initiative as China’s key strategy to muscle in on the dollar as a payments and finance currency.
The Belt and Road Initiative involves large infrastructure projects in Asia, Europe (particularly Eastern Europe), the Middle East, Latin
America, and Africa.
“There is opportunity for China to use the RMB as a currency” for these projects, and Chinese companies could “potentially move to
transactions denominated in RMB,” SWIFT’s report said. “Not unexpectedly, banks are stepping up to take advantage of the shift.”
“China is also pushing countries along the BRI to allow greater usage of the RMB, though countries are not always
responding favorably,” SWIFT says, thus listing another headwind for the RMB: Resistance from other countries.
China is known to be patient and can measure progress in decades, rather than in quarters. But the progress of the RMB’s
internationalization must be nerve-wracking slow , even for China.

China has never dethroned the dollar – doing so requires international treaties
and negotiations – not just a growing economy.
Cardozo '18 [Claudio Testoni Cardozo has a has a Master's degree in Business Management
from Vale dos Sinos University (UNISINOS), a Master's degree in Business Administration from
the University of Poitiers – Institut d'Administration des Entreprises, France, and an MBA in
Business Process Management from Vale dos Sinos University (UNISINOS). Why China's Yuan Is
Unlikely to Challenge the Dollar Anytime Soon. Novermber 17, 2018.
https://fee.org/articles/why-chinas-yuan-is-unlikely-to-challenge-the-dollar-anytime-soon/]
After the 2008 crisis, there was a decline in dollar preponderance in the international economy
compared to China’s rise, as the latter gradually attempted to reduce dependence on the American
currency and to discuss the possibility of the yuan becoming the main currency used in international market transactions in the
future.
But is this a threat to the dollar’s hegemony? According to several researchers, monetary
hegemony is achieved not
only through coercion but also through the consensus of all parties involved as a synthesis between
domination and direction, or as Perry Anderson says, as a “dynamic balance between force and consent.”
From An Historical Perspective
Let´s take a look at the history behind this American monetary hegemony. At the end of World War II, the Bretton-Woods
agreement confirmed the United States’ central position in the international market with the definition of the international dollar-
gold standard. Soon after, in 1971, Richard Nixon established the inconvertibility of the dollar versus gold relation.
This led the United States to establish “ strong dollar diplomacy” in 1979.
With this act, the dollar shifted to a floating exchange system, separating the relationship and allowing the dollar to float in a flexible
way. This act was called “Nixon Shock” because president Nixon made this decision without consulting the international monetary
system members or even his own State Department. YNT. The United States went on to issue the key currency of international trade
without any external restriction because there was no more need to maintain your local currency fixed compared to the official price
of gold.
This change made by Nixon meant the exit of gold from the international monetary system and kept the world economic market (as
it was before) dependent on the dollar—or, rather, the US banks. This scenario led to speculation in the 1970s that culminated in the
devaluation of the US dollar against other currencies. This led the United States to establish “strong dollar
diplomacy ” in 1979, raising its interest rates, reducing its international market currency in order to reduce their vulnerability,
and attracting investment capital from all over the world. This caused the appreciation of the US currency and consolidated
the American monetary standard .
This historical scenario makes it clear that the United States has been able to demonstrate a high capacity to coordinate the world
economy from its interests. Even after the 2008 crisis, which drew the world’s attention to the weaknesses of the American
economic system (the “Dollar Dilemma”), there is no break from this economic order. Investors turned to US
treasury
bonds , which have maintained their central position in the world economic system. This
brought an image of a reliable economy, representing a safe haven for investors, increasing and reinforcing the concept of universal
reserve of value exerted by the dollar due to the crucial role played by the American state.
More Recently
China's growth in recent years has raised questions about the dollar’s central role in the international economy.
According to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), from 2010 to 2013, the dollar increased its share of total foreign exchange
transactions from 84.9 percent to 87 percent, ranking the first position followed by the euro, which fell from 39.1 percent to 33.4
percent. The Brazilian real went from 0.7 percent to 1.1 percent, and the yuan rose from 0.9 percent to 2.2 percent. According to the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), in 2014, 61 percent of the total international reserves identified were denominated in US
dollars.
China's growth in recent years, in conjunction with the 2008 crisis, has raised questions about the dollar’s central role in the
international economy. The IMF reviews the basket of currencies every five years. In 2010, the possibility of including the yuan in the
basket appeared but was not accepted. In 2015, there was a new revision, and this time its entry was established the following year.
In October 2016, the yuan became part of the basket of IMF reserve currencies, along with the US dollar, euro, pound sterling, and
the yen. You can see the proportions in the internationalization index of major world currencies below (data collected in 2014):
This fact represents the recognition of the global financial system to the progress made in China in recent years with the reform of
its monetary and financial system. Chinese researchers believe this addition to the IMF currency basket was a success, making the
yuan the fifth largest currency in the world, but despite having a growth rate of internationalization above 85 percent in
comparisons with other currencies like the dollar and the euro, there is still a long way to go:
[…] the process of RMB internationalization is still in the initial stage, and the degree of internationalization is far lower
than some international currencies such as dollar, euro and yen. Therefore, the process of RMB internationalization

still requires further promotion and improvement .

Don’t Get Too Excited
The internationalization of a currency is a long, multi-step process that involves the consolidation of currency as an international
common use object, a vehicle for foreign exchange transactions, a unit of commodity price definition and, finally, acting as a reserve
currency. For a currency to be international, it must meet a set of requirements favoring currencies that already have some of these
conditions.
Among these requirements are the trust in its future value, a high degree of liquidity, and a chance of acceptance by others
guaranteed through influence on the transactional network. Especially at the political level, domestic political stability and effective
governance are needed in the country issuing the international currency. The more friends and allies, the greater the willingness of
other countries to use the currency of that country.
International banks will only want to accumulate yuan if they can move their money into and out of China freely.
It is important to note that the dollar has a history. The
dollar is recognized as an international currency not
only because of the US market size but also its history in international treaties and
negotiations seeking the alignment of mutual interests in international trade. The yuan still has a
long way to go in that direction.
In order for the yuan be the next international curren cy, perhaps the Chinese Communist
Party would have to reduce power . The Chinese authorities probably know this but seem to want to postpone it as
much as possible. International banks and institutional investors will only want to accumulate yuan if they can move their money
into and out of China freely and if banks are strong enough to keep up with the waves of a market-driven economy. This
means
there are many variables to consider before promoting the yuan to the status of the main
international currency.

China is far behind- the yuan can’t match the sheer dominance of the
greenback - the dollar makes up two thirds of Chinas exchange reserve
Lee 18
Beijing-based correspondent Amanda Lee covers markets and the economy for the Post, with an
interest in China's economic and social landscape. A graduate of the London School of
Economics, she joined the Post in 2017 and has previously worked for Thomson Reuters and
Forbes/28 September, 2018. .https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/2166072/fed-rate-
rises-trade-war-and-us-dollar-dominance-add-big-headache-beijing///dvb
Countries from Argentina to Turkey have already been battered by higher interest rates in the US as US dollar-

denominated assets became more attractive, triggering capital flight from those countries
that have seen their currencies weaken against the greenback.
Weighed down with US trade tariffs and a domestic debt overhang, China is vulnerable to
capital outflow pressure and sell-offs. Already, Shanghai stocks have lost 15.6 per cent this year and the yuan
an unprecedented pace of depreciation.
has fallen by 9 per cent against the US dollar since April,

The strength and stability of the US dollar has made it the backbone of the world’s reserve
currency system, maintaining liquidity and a safe haven status during times of volatility.
Despite Beijing’s constant complaints about the dollar hegemony over the past decade, the greenback is still the
default choice for China’s trade settlement , and dollar-denominated assets account for about
two-thirds of China’s total foreign exchange reserves.
Economists said the dollar’s status was a source of power for the world’s largest economy.
But while China can temporarily shield its financial markets from fallout from the Fed, it
could lose an economic war if US dollar dominance continues.
“All America has to do to preserve its economic dominance is to grow 2 per cent a year for the next 20 or 30 years,” Huang said.
“[This is because] America’s gross domestic product per capita is seven times as large as China’s. The gap between China
and America just gets bigger and bigger.”

China can never overtake US dollar heg—domestic issues

Yeung '19 1/15/19, Karen Yeung || Karen Yeung joined the Post in 2017 after more than 15 years' experience on global
newswires in Hong Kong and Shanghai. She spent eight years in Shanghai and has received awards for best feature, analysis and
agenda-setting || Why China and Russia are struggling to abandon the US dollar and forge a yuan-rouble deal, South China Morning
Post || https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2182192/why-china-and-russia-are-struggling-abandon-us-dollar-
and
Russia and China plan to ditch the US dollar and switch to local currencies in international trade but yet
another delay to a
new system for yuan-rouble settlements shows just how complex it is to develop an alternative
to the greenback.
Russia, China and a number of other countries are aiming to cut their dependence on the US dollar, as Washington uses access to
the dollar payment system as a weapon to punish nations and individuals for breaking US laws, even outside the United States.
In November, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said that Moscow and Beijing were finalising a memorandum to settle more
bilateral trade in the rouble and yuan.
The two countries were also reportedly in talks to launch a new cross-border system to improve direct payments of trade invoices,
and for the use of China’s UnionPay credit card in Russia and Russia’s Mir card in China.
But late last month, Russian media quoted Siluanov as saying that Moscow had decided to step away from Beijing’s proposed plan.
China and Russia look to ditch dollar with new payments system in move to avoid sanctions
Talks would continue between the two countries’ central banks, as well as between Russia’s Ministry of Finance and China’s Ministry
of Commerce, the reports said, without offering details of the plan.
Given the growth in Russia-China trade and their opposition to US sanctions via the dollar payment system, Beijing and Moscow
were likely to keep working towards a system acceptable to both sides, analysts said.
Like a growing number of countries, China and Russia are keen to work out an alternative to protect their banks and bankrollers
from the US’ secondary sanction power of prosecuting entities that deal with sanctioned companies or individuals from Russia, Iran
or Venezuela.
But other nations, such as India, aim to enter a bilateral arrangement to cut their ballooning trade deficit with China. It’s no easy task
though – just before the deal with Moscow was put on hold, Beijing rejected an Indian proposal for a rupee-yuan transaction
system.
The US dollar is the preferred currency for international trade because it is one of the least
volatile and thus less prone to a sudden depreciation.
The setback for the new payments infrastructure shows just how difficult it is to shift away from
the US-dominated status quo.
Dmitry Dolgin, Russia chief economist at ING Bank, said that the memorandum between China and Russia was supposed to improve
financial infrastructure for settlements in those currencies.
“The shelving of the agreement means the [foreign exchange] clearing will not become easier any time soon,” Dolgin said.
The US dollar is the preferred currency for international trade because it is one of the least volatile and thus less prone to a sudden
depreciation. Russia’s rouble is a more volatile currency partly due to existing US and European sanctions and partly because its
main export is energy, which leaves the rouble vulnerable to changes in petroleum prices.
China and Russia: new BFFs thanks to an insecure US
Evghenia Sleptsova, senior emerging market economist at Oxford Economics, said that the greater stability of the yuan over the
rouble was a plus for Russian exporters and a minus for Chinese exporters, who had no incentive to add currency risks to an already
volatile commodity.
And while China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” and the Eurasian Economic Union are forging economic ties between the two countries,
China is fast replacing Russia as a dominant economic power in the region, which might make Russia reluctant to accept Chinese
financing and projects, according to Otilia Dhand, senior vice-president at the intelligence division of Teneo, a management
consultancy.
“Russia and China are developing cooperation in several areas and these intensifying collaboration is partially driven by their shared
opposition to the US dominance in the world,” Dhand said.
But the economic gains were modest, with some Chinese investment falling through in even the
most promising areas such as the energy sector, she said.
China has also slowed down its efforts to internationalise its currency in the last three years
because of concerns about capital outflows amid slowing econ omic growth. Beijing is strictly
scrutinising and controlling outbound investments by Chinese individuals and businesses even
though it encourages foreign investors to plough money into the country.
China and Russian ties, rooted in energy deals, buffeted by ecomomic headwinds
Still, the role of the yuan and the rouble in Russia’s financial and trade transactions has grown in the last few years, and the strategic
partnership with China will continue to deepen, especially if the US remains in an adversarial position to both, according to Dolgin.
That growth has been aided by China setting up a “payment versus payment” (PVP) system for yuan-rouble transactions in 2017,
paving the way for China to use PVP systems for yuan transactions with other currencies along the belt and road route. The PVP
systems reduce settlement risk as well as the risk of transactions taking place in different time zones, and improve foreign exchange
market efficiency.
In 2014, China and Russia signed 38 energy, trade and finance deals and a currency swap worth 150 billion yuan (US$22 billion).
Russia had sought trade links with China after its forceful annexation of Crimea soured ties with the United States and European
Union.
In bilateral trade with China, about 14 per cent of payments are already done in yuan, and about 7 to 8 per cent in the rouble,
according to Russia’s Finance Ministry.
The Russian central bank is also buying yuan for its foreign reserves, purchasing US$44 billion worth of the Chinese currency in the
second quarter of 2018, while selling more than US$100 billion of US dollars. Russia held US$67 billion in yuan as of mid-2018, 15
per cent of its international reserves.
China’s yuan has become the fourth largest component of Russia’s international reserves after the euro (32 per cent), the US dollar
(22 per cent), and gold (17 per cent).
Russia wants to see bilateral trade with China top US$200 billion by 2020.
The People’s Bank of China did not respond to requests for comment.

Yuan usage is low even at a key point during China’s drive to overtake dollar
hegemony—shows that it will never happen
Tan '18 2/2/18, Huileng Tan || Huileng covers China's global expansion as a reporter for CNBC || China's currency is still
nowhere near overtaking the dollar for global payments, CNBC || https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/china-currency-yuan-the-
rmb-isnt-near-overtaking-the-us-dollar.html
China is on a drive to promote the use of its currency globally but this is still far from upsetting the greenback,
according to an important global metric.
Data released this week from Swift, the global interbank system that transfers trillions of dollars
worth of currency daily, showed that just 1.61 percent of domestic and cross-border payments
processed in December were denominated in yuan (also known as renminbi, or RMB.)
“The RMB has had a difficult year in 2017 and struggled to realize its potential for growth,” Michael Moon, Swift’s head of payments
markets for Asia Pacific, said in a news release.
Swift noted in its report that, despite
the growing importance of China in the global economy and
various strategic measures to support its currency, yuan usage remains low and “the pace of
adoption remains lower than expected,” Alain Raes, Swift’s chief executive for Asia Pacific and
Europe, the Middle East and Africa, wrote in a report about the Chinese currency.
It’s pretty much still a dollarized world, Swift noted in its report, with the U.S. currency accounting for just under 40 percent of cross-
border payments in December 2017. While that was lower than the same month in 2015 and 2016, it was not the yuan but the euro
that gained over the greenback.
The third and fourth most dominant currencies were the British pound and the Japanese yen, respectively.
In fact, the Chinese currency’s share as a total of global payments fell against the year-ago period. The yuan accounted for 1.68
percent of international payments in December 2016. The currency’s share was 2.31 percent in December 2015.
A major reason why the renminbi has not gained traction among international users is that the
government has instituted strong controls over its financial system, particularly regulatory
measures to stem the money moving overseas for property and other purchases.
Uncertainty about capital controls and regulation will likely persist this year, so the usage of the yuan isn’t poised to increase, Moon
suggested.
Slow start but there’s potential
Still, there are budding signs that international institutions are warming up to the Chinese currency — or just that they’re being
increasingly compelled to use it.
An early adopter of the Chinese yuan is Pakistan, the central bank of which said in January it will be replacing the dollar with the
RMB for bilateral trade and investment with Beijing.
In January, central banks in Europe revealed plans to hold the yuan as part of their foreign currency reserves.
A free float for the yuan is at least four or five years away
Among recent developments bolstering China’s financial clout on a global scale is MSCI finally giving its nod to the addition of
mainland shares into its emerging market index, as well as the launch of various so-called “connect” programs in Hong Kong that will
allow international investors to tap into mainland assets.
The world’s second-largest economy is also reportedly planning a yuan-denominated oil futures contract, which may be convertible
into gold. If that futures contract becomes a benchmark, the geopolitically important oil industry could see a shift in power.
The developments come as the U.S. is widely perceived to be turning inward under the administration of President Donald Trump
just as China is aggressively pursuing a greater leadership role globally.
But even though the building blocks for the internationalization of the renminbi are in place, getting private support
beyond governments can be tough, said DBS economist Chris Leung.
“It will take a longer time for the private sector to completely accept RMB as a settlement currency,” Leung wrote in a recent note.
The biggest issue is the convertibility of the Chinese currency, which is still being largely controlled by Beijing, he said.
How would a yuan-denominated crude futures contract impact the dollar?
There’s little doubt Beijing wants to internationalize the RMB to increase the domestic economy’s attractiveness for foreign
investors and bolster its political ambitions. Under the leadership of veteran central banker Zhou Xiaochuan, the country has
ushered in financial reforms and expanded the yuan’s global reach.
In October 2016, the International Monetary Fund included the Chinese currency in its Special Drawing Rights basket, which already
included the dollar, euro, British pound and Japanese yen.
The next major move that may nudge the world to use more of the yuan could be Chinese President Xi Jinping’s pet project, the Belt
and Road Initiative.
“The global economic landscape is shifting and China’s strategy, along with the RMB, has a role to play. Though the two are not fully
aligned yet, there is opportunity for China to use the RMB as a currency for upcoming infrastructure projects expected as part of the
Belt & Road Initiative,” said Swift’s Raes.
 AT China/Russia
De-dollarization hasn’t happened in Russia and China and those shifts will be
extremely difficult. Specifically, OIL IMPORTS are significant to this shift!
Weir '18 [Fred Weir has been the Monitor's Moscow correspondent, covering Russia and the
former Soviet Union, since 1998. He's traveled over much of that vast territory, reporting on
stories ranging from Russia's financial crash to the war in Chechnya, creeping Islamization in
central Asia, Russia's demographic crisis, the rise of Vladimir Putin and his repeated returns to
the Kremlin, and the ups and downs of US-Russia relations. An end to the dollar's global
hegemony? The Kremlin sees an opportunity. October 12, 2018.
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2018/1012/An-end-to-the-dollar-s-global-
hegemony-The-Kremlin-sees-an-opportunity.]
For average Russians, a small personal hoard of US dollars has always represented a place of safety amid the wild ups-and-downs
that continue to beset the country's national currency, the ruble.
So it triggered a touch of panic among them when the Russian government confirmed long-standing rumors that it is working on a
plan to insulate the economy from escalating US sanctions through “ de-dollarization .”
The Trump administration has increasingly worked to weaponize the US dollar, by using its hegemonic position as the world's
“reserve currency” to punish any entity or country that attempts to defy proliferating unilateral US sanctions against Russia, Iran,
and China. And the Kremlin is seizing what it sees as an opportunity to force the dollar out of its privileged position in global trade
and finance.
The idea might have sounded quixotic a decade or so ago, when Russia and China first started talking about it. For advocates, it has a
rousing rhetorical ring to it, but experts say it's
an extremely difficult reality to change in practice. Even
Russia and China, the world's leading anti-dollar activists, have so far only managed to shift
about a quarter of their own $60 billion bilateral trade into other currencies.
But now the European Union has announced that it will create a special financial infrastructure to continue trading with Iran, despite
the threat of “secondary sanctions” from Washington. It will have to be built from scratch, to effectively avoid any use of the US
dollar or the global banks and financial circuits that fall under US regulation. The EU, whose own currency, the euro, is a potential
contender to take the dollar's place, has indicated that other signatories of the Iran nuclear deal, such as Russia and China, might
have access to their new payment system for “legitimate” trade with Iran.
In the changing environment other countries, even India, which purchases weapons from sanctioned Russian companies, may find
themselves looking for ways to circumvent the dollar and the US scrutiny that comes with it.
“Of course this plays into Putin's hands, because anything that makes the US look like the enemy, with other countries supporting
us, bolsters his public image,” says Andrei Movchan, economic policy expert with the Carnegie Center in Moscow. “But this is being
driven by the threat that new sanctions, being prepared in Washington, would prohibit Russian banks from dealing in US dollars.”
“In fact, this whole discourse about sanctions and how to evade them is becoming permanent. And, in principle, switching
to
the use of other currencies is feasible; it wouldn't be easy , and would impose a lot of new costs ,
but it can be done.”
The dollar's deep reach
There are short-term risks for the Kremlin in moving against the dollar. The Moscow daily Moskovsky
Komsomolets reported this week that nearly $20 billion has been withdrawn from Russia in the past three months, almost 50 times
the outflow for the same period last year, in part due to the growing official talk about banning the dollar.
But Russian officials have rushed to reassure average citizens that their hard-won right to hold bank accounts denoted in foreign
currency is not under threat. Instead, they have cast the issue in geopolitical terms, warning that the multiplication of US sanctions
against Russia is reaching a point where Washington itself might ban Russian banks from any transactions in dollars. Thus, they say,
the country needs to ready its financial system to meet that challenge.
“More and more countries, not only in the East but also in Europe, are beginning to think about how to minimize dependence on the
US dollar,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists last week. “And they suddenly realize that: a) it is possible, b) it needs
to be done, and c) you can save yourself if you do it sooner.”
Since the end of World War II, the US dollar has been the world's de facto reserve currency. Most goods
traded internationally are priced in dollars, as is 40 percent of global debt and 64 percent of all
governments' foreign currency reserves.
Besides spreading a net of subtle American financial control over much of the world, this has benefited the US in a variety of other
ways. The widespread demand for dollars in international trade, particularly oil and gas, keeps the dollar strong and US interest rates
low, and contributes to its reputation as a “safe haven” currency. Even during the financial collapse of 2008, people the world over
rushed to buy dollars, and dollar-denominated assets such as US treasury bills, in order to keep their money safe.
That, in turn, enables the US government to run very high budget deficits which, despite frequent cries of alarm from conservative
commentators, has yet to create anything like the debt crises that often sink lesser economies, such as Greece. (YNT)
Speaking to an international economic forum in Vladivostok last month, Vladimir Putin warned that US debt is a time bomb that
threatens global stability, and it behooves everyone to get as far away from the dollar as possible as fast as they can. “US foreign
debt amounts to $20 trillion. What will be next? Who knows?” he said.
‘No one wants to hold rubles’
But it's easier said than done. Russia would like to be paid for its exports, especially oil, in a

currency other than dollars . The new Russian government plan will reportedly offer tax incentives for Russian
companies that do business abroad in rubles, which would boost the Russian currency and its international reputation.
“You can talk all you like about de-dollarization, but no one wants to hold rubles , which have lost value
consistently over the past four years,” says Dmitry Oreshkin, head of the Mercator Group, an independent Moscow-
based political think tank. “When you sign contracts, do business over a period of time, everyone needs a reliable
currency that preserves its value. So we are talking about dollars , or maybe euros.”
Russia has succeeded in making the ruble the only currency for domestic transactions, and it has created a domestic payment
system, the Mir card, which is independent from US-based international payment systems like Visa and Mastercard, and hence
sanctions-proof. Yet the Mir card has only 400 participating domestic banks and companies, and is used mainly by the Russian
government to pay its employees and pensioners.
“The ruble-dollar rate remains the standard for Russians. They might use rubles, but they think dollars ,” says
Natalya Orlova, chief economist for Alfa Bank, one of Russia's leading private commercial banks.
“This talk about de-dollarization doesn't mean it will be implemented . It implies that you
should switch, it creates uncertainty, makes the dollar sound toxic. But in practice, it would be
very complicated, and costly, and it would have to be very, very gradual.”
 AT NOPEC
OPEC is a powerless organization – it is losing control of the oil markets because
Saudi Arabia is acting independently. Thus, anti-OPEC thumpers don’t apply,
but specific action against Saudi Arabia, a powerful oil producer in its own right,
still does
Treadgold 7/2 [Tim Treadgold studied geology in the 1960s and worked for a small mining
company before getting a start in journalism during the 1969 nickel boom. Opec Is Not Dead Yet,
But It Has Lost Control Of The Oil Market. July 2, 2019.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2019/07/02/opec-is-not-dead-yet-but-it-has-lost-
control-of-the-oil-market/#526883e25fa2]
The death of Opec , the oil-producers cartel, has been predicted many times in the past, but
rarely from a member of the club which is why this time it might be correct.
So, when Iran's Oil Minister, Bijan Zanganeh, warned earlier this week on the sidelines of a meeting of the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries that a private production deal negotiated between Russia
and Saudi Arabia "threatened the existence of Opec " he was not exaggerating.
What particularly annoyed Zanganeh was what he called unilateralism, the teaming of two big oil producers to effectively decide
what all Opec members should do.
Adding insult to injury was the fact that one of the countries deciding oil production quotas for the next nine months is not a
member of Opec (Russia is classified as an observer) while the other, Saudi Arabia is a regional enemy.
But, behind the latest oil production and price-rigging exercise is an alarming development that no-one in Opec is prepared to admit
and that's the fact that the cartel and its friends have ceded control of oil to the U.S. and will struggle to get
it back YNT before the renewable energy revolution hits full steam.
The best way to demonstrate the transfer of oil-control to the U.S. (or should that be return of control) is to consider two questions:
which country has the greatest demand for oil and which country is the biggest producer?
To both questions the answer is the U.S., and while there might be an argument over the precise numbers because of Opec's
artificial production controls the reality is that the U.S.
has stormed back into global oil production
leadership courtesy of output from shale and other hard rocks which have been tamed by modern technologies such
as directional drilling and rock fracturing.
The U.S. is also the leader in total oil and gas demand, with China a close competitor in a global economy which is showing signs of
slowing which will further reduce demand for oil.
This is Opec's ultimate problem because while
the cartel's members might believe they control the oil
market, and can increase and decrease production to manipulate the price, the reality is that the game has
changed from a time when a small group of oil producers could hold the world to ransom .
Having a supply competitor in the U.S. is a bad enough for Opec, but having a rival which is also the world's major oil user is double
trouble, especially as the reason the U.S. has reclaimed is oil leadership is not simply a matter of having the right geology, it's more
about having the right technology -- and that technology is transferable from one oil-rich location to another.
The latest production cuts by Opec and Russia might have the desired effect of boosting the oil
price though in doing that it also
encourages increased U.S. shale output .
In a way, Opec is simply subsidizing U.S. shale-oil production as its members try to get the price to a level where
they can balance their budgets.
The irony of what's happening can best be seen in comments from the Saudi oil minister, Khalid al-Falih, who said after the Opec
meeting that U.S. shale oil would one day peak and go the same way as every other oil basin.
"It will peak, plateau and then decline," al-Falih said.
He's absolutely right because that's what happens to every oilfield, and mine, over time.
But what he neglected to add is that the same process of peaking, plateauing and declining is what will also happen to Saudi and
Russian oilfields.
What will last a lot longer than the geology of those fields is the technology to extract difficult or unconventional oil and gas in the
U.S. and the rest of the world as the technology is mastered and exported.
Opec might not be dead but it's certainly a club with some anxious members who are starting to
worry how long they can stick together.

A NOPEC bill is not inevitable – it will fail in congress, just as previous bills have
failed miserably and thus can’t be counted as thumpers
Exarheas 2/14 [Andreas Exarheas is a multimedia journalist with 10 years of experience in
writing, proof reading, researching and editing (copy, audio & video) for online and print media
across a range of industries, including oil & gas, finance, food & beverage, property, sports,
veterinary medicine, travel and entertainment. NOPEC Bill to Fail if Brought to a Vote. February
14, 2019. https://www.rigzone.com/news/nopec_bill_to_fail_if_brought_to_a_vote-14-feb-
2019-158153-article/]
Fitch Solutions expects the NOPEC bill to fail if brought to a vote, according to a report published by
the company earlier this week.
“The U.S. oil industry and oil producing states would fiercely oppose the bill as OPEC serves as key

buffer to low oil prices and any removal of price influence would hurt profits,” Fitch Solutions stated in the report,
which was sent to Rigzone.
“We at Fitch Solutions expect the bill
to fail if brought to a vote as the oil interests and commercial
impacts would be significant and the potential second order effects on U.S. politics, policy and commerce too great
for legislators to risk for the benefit of lower consumer fuel prices,” the company added.
In the report, Fitch Solutions highlighted that the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has passed the ‘markup’ phase of the No Oil
Producing and Exporting Cartels Act. This stage is prior to the floor action phases in which the bill is put on the calendar, debated,
and ultimately voted on, Fitch Solutions confirmed.
“Various versions of the bill have come to this stage of the legislative process previously and
have even passed both the House and Senate, though neither were enacted into law. The President’s office has yet
to state position on the bill though it is expected to be supported,” Fitch Solutions said in the report.
The passage of the NOPEC Act would allow prosecution of sovereign entities under the Sherman Act
by removing elements of sovereign immunity, Fitch Solutions highlighted in the report. The company stated in its publication that
this would open “huge liabilities” to participating OPEC+ producers, “with them potentially facing
unknown financial penalties”.
“Many of the sovereign states may choose to exit the Declaration of Cooperation in order to avoid fallout. Passage of the
NOPEC act, and successful enforcement, could end OPEC's ability to enact production cuts and target
setting, effectively ending the organization’s relevance and impact,” Fitch Solutions stated in the report.
“The end of OPEC interventions could lead to an oversupplied market , lowering fuels costs, although
wild fluctuations in prices would be more likely as balance of supply and demand is a key function of
OPEC's mandate,” Fitch Solutions added.

A NOPEC bill is not inevitable – it will fail in congress, just as previous bills have
failed miserably and thus can’t be counted as thumpers
Exarheas 2/14 [Andreas Exarheas is a multimedia journalist with 10 years of experience in
writing, proof reading, researching and editing (copy, audio & video) for online and print media
across a range of industries, including oil & gas, finance, food & beverage, property, sports,
veterinary medicine, travel and entertainment. NOPEC Bill to Fail if Brought to a Vote. February
14, 2019. https://www.rigzone.com/news/nopec_bill_to_fail_if_brought_to_a_vote-14-feb-
2019-158153-article/]
Fitch Solutions expects the NOPEC bill to fail if brought to a vote, according to a report published by
the company earlier this week.
“The U.S. oil industry and oil producing states would fiercely oppose the bill as OPEC serves as key
buffer to low oil prices and any removal of price influence would hurt profits,” Fitch Solutions stated in the report,
which was sent to Rigzone.
“We at Fitch Solutions expect the bill
to fail if brought to a vote as the oil interests and commercial
impacts would be significant and the potential second order effects on U.S. politics, policy and commerce too great
for legislators to risk for the benefit of lower consumer fuel prices,” the company added.
In the report, Fitch Solutions highlighted that the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has passed the ‘markup’ phase of the No Oil
Producing and Exporting Cartels Act. This stage is prior to the floor action phases in which the bill is put on the calendar, debated,
and ultimately voted on, Fitch Solutions confirmed.
“Various versions of the bill have come to this stage of the legislative process previously and
have even passed both the House and Senate, though neither were enacted into law. The President’s office has yet
to state position on the bill though it is expected to be supported,” Fitch Solutions said in the report.
The passage of the NOPEC Act would allow prosecution of sovereign entities under the Sherman Act
by removing elements of sovereign immunity, Fitch Solutions highlighted in the report. The company stated in its publication that
this would open “huge liabilities” to participating OPEC+ producers, “with them potentially facing
unknown financial penalties”.
“Many of the sovereign states may choose to exit the Declaration of Cooperation in order to avoid fallout. Passage of the
NOPEC act, and successful enforcement, could end OPEC's ability to enact production cuts and target
setting, effectively ending the organization’s relevance and impact,” Fitch Solutions stated in the report.
“The end of OPEC interventions could lead to an oversupplied market , lowering fuels costs, although
wild fluctuations in prices would be more likely as balance of supply and demand is a key function of
OPEC's mandate,” Fitch Solutions added.
 AT Trumpers
Trump doesn’t thump – his messing about has failed to dethrone the dollar
despite the predictions of analysts and advisors.
Coy 18 [Peter Coy is the Bloomberg Businessweek Economics Editor. The Tyranny of the U.S.
Dollar. October 3, 2018. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/the-tyranny-
of-the-u-s-dollar.]
There’s a paradox at the heart of global finance. The U.S. share of the world economy has drifted lower for
decades, and now President Trump is retreating from the American chief executive’s
traditional role as Leader of the Free World. Yet the U.S. dollar remains , as the saying goes,
almighty . “American exceptionalism has never been this stark,” Ruchir Sharma, head of emerging markets and chief global
strategist for Morgan Stanley Investment Management, said at a Council on Foreign Relations symposium on Sept. 24.
By the latest tally of the European Central Bank, America’s currency makes up two-thirds of
international debt and a like share of global reserve holdings. Oil and gold are priced in
dollars, not euros or yen . When Somali pirates hold up ships at sea, it’s dollars they demand. And threats to be cut
off from the dollar-based global payments system strike terror into the likes of Iran, North
Korea, and Russia. It’s no exaggeration to say that the dollar’s primacy is at least as valuable to the U.S. as a couple of aircraft
carrier strike groups.
NEG -- Links
Links - Saudi Petrodollar
 Links - Generic
Threats prove retaliation against the dollar is real and possible
Zhdannikov et al. 4-4-19 (4/4/19, Dmitry Zhdannikov, Rania El Gamal, and Alex Lawler || Exclusive: Saudi Arabia
threatens to ditch dollar oil trades to stop 'NOPEC' - sources, Reuters || https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-usa-oil-
exclusive/exclusive-saudi-arabia-threatens-to-ditch-dollar-oil-trades-to-stop-nopec-sources-idUSKCN1RH008)
LONDON/DUBAI (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia is threatening to sell its oil in currencies other than the dollar if
Washington passes a bill exposing OPEC members to U.S. antitrust lawsuits, three sources familiar with Saudi energy policy said.
They said the option had been discussed internally by senior Saudi energy officials in recent months. Two of the sources said the plan
had been discussed with OPEC members and one source briefed on Saudi oil policy said Riyadh had also communicated the threat to
senior U.S. energy officials.
The chances of the U.S. bill known as NOPEC coming into force are slim and Saudi Arabia would be unlikely to follow through, but
thefact Riyadh is considering such a drastic step is a sign of the kingdom’s annoyance about
potential U.S. legal challenges to OPEC.
In the unlikely event Riyadh were to ditch the dollar, it would undermine the its status as the world’s main reserve currency, reduce
Washington’s clout in global trade and weaken its ability to enforce sanctions on nation states.
“The Saudis know they have the dollar as the nuclear option ,” one of the sources familiar with
the matter said.
“The Saudis say: let the Americans pass NOPEC and it would be the U.S. economy that would fall apart,” another source said.
Saudi Arabia’s energy ministry did not respond to a request for comment.
A U.S. state department official said: “as a general matter, we don’t comment on pending legislation.”
The U.S. Energy Department did not respond to a request for comment. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has said that NOPEC could lead
to unintended consequences.
DOLLAR HEGEMONY
NOPEC, or the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, was first introduced in 2000 and aims to remove sovereign immunity from
U.S. antitrust law, paving the way for OPEC states to be sued for curbing output in a bid to raise oil prices.
While the bill has never made it into law despite numerous attempts, the legislation has gained momentum since U.S. President
Donald Trump came to office. Trump said he backed NOPEC in a book published in 2011 before he was elected, though he not has
not voiced support for NOPEC as president.
Trump has instead stressed the importance of U.S-Saudi relations, including sales of U.S. military equipment, even after the killing of
journalist Jamal Khashoggi last year.
A move by Saudi Arabia to ditch the dollar would resonate well with big non-OPEC oil producers
such as Russia as well as major consumers China and the European Union, which have been
calling for moves to diversify global trade away from the dollar to dilute U.S. influence over the
world economy.
Russia, which is subject to U.S. sanctions, has tried to sell oil in euros and China’s yuan but the
proportion of its sales in those currencies is not significant.
Venezuela and Iran, which are also under U.S. sanctions, sell most of their oil in other currencies but they have done little to
challenge the dollar’s hegemony in the oil market.
However, if a long-standing U.S. ally such as Saudi Arabia joined the club of non-dollar oil sellers it would be a far more significant
move likely to gain traction within the industry.
WHAT IF?
Saudi Arabia controls a 10th of global oil production, roughly on par with its main rivals - the United States and Russia. Its oil firm
Saudi Aramco holds the crown of the world’s biggest oil exporter with sales of $356 billion last year.
Depending on prices, oil is estimated to represent 2 percent to 3 percent of global gross domestic product. At the current price of
$70 per barrel, the annual value of global oil output is $2.5 trillion.
Not all of those oil volumes are traded in the U.S. currency but at least 60 percent is traded via tankers and international pipelines
with the majority of those deals done in dollars.
Trading in derivatives such as oil futures and options is mainly dollar denominated. The top two global energy exchanges, ICE and
CME, traded a billion lots of oil derivatives in 2018 with a nominal value of about $5 trillion.
Just the prospect of NOPEC has already had implications for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Qatar, one of the
core Gulf OPEC members, quit the group in December because of the risk NOPEC could harm its U.S. expansion plans.
Two sources said that despite raising the dollar threat, Saudi Arabia did not believe it would need to follow through.
“I don’t think the NOPEC bill will pass but the Saudis have ‘what if’ scenarios,” one of the sources said.
In the event of such a drastic Saudi move, the impact would take some time to play out given the industry’s decades-old practices
built around the U.S. dollar - from lending to exchange clearing.
Other potential threats raised in Saudi discussions about retaliation against NOPEC included liquidating the kingdom’s holdings in the
United States, the sources said.
The kingdom has nearly $1 trillion invested in the United States and holds some $160 billion in U.S. Treasuries.
If it did carry out its threat, Riyadh would also have to ditch the Saudi riyal’s peg to the dollar, which has been exchanged at a fixed
rate since 1986, the sources said.
The United States, the world’s largest oil consumer, relied heavily on Saudi and OPEC supplies
for decades - while supporting Riyadh militarily against its arch-foe Iran.
But soaring shale oil production at home has made Washington less dependant on OPEC, allowing it to be more forceful in the way it
deals with Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations.
Over the past year, Trump has regularly called on OPEC to pump more oil to lower global oil prices, and linked his demands to
political support for Riyadh - something previous U.S. administrations have refrained from doing, at least publicly.

The plan would trigger Saudi’s “nuclear option”

DiChristopher 4-5-19 (Tom DiChristopher is an award-winning multimedia journalist who covers energy for CNBC.com ||
Saudi Arabia is reportedly mulling nuclear option of stripping the US dollar from oil trade, CNBC||
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/saudi-arabia-is-reportedly-mulls-stripping-us-dollar-from-oil-trade.html)
Saudi Arabia is reportedly considering selling its crude
The U.S. dollar is the dominant currency in oil trading, but
in other currencies if American lawmakers pass an anti-OPEC bill.
The discussions, reported by Reuters, suggest that Riyadh is preparing a strategy to deal with potential passage of the No
Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, known as NOPEC. The legislation is widely viewed as a longshot, which means the Saudi
move to marginalize the dollar is unlikely to come to pass.
Still, the kingdom has discussed the proposal with other OPEC members, two sources told Reuters.
Another source said Riyadh has broached the subject with U.S. energy officials.
If the Saudis followed through, it would chip away at U.S. influence over global financial markets and
Washington’s ability to enforce sanctions on foreign entities. Efforts to diminish the greenback’s role in oil
trading have been fairly limited to date, but the Saudi plan would lend significant momentum to those efforts — and represent a
coup for countries like Russia and China.
It
Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest oil exporter, and its total crude output is surpassed only by U.S. and Russian production.
pumps enough oil to meet about 10 percent of global demand, while OPEC fulfills about a third
of global consumption.
“The Saudis know they have the dollar as the nuclear option,” one of the sources told Reuters.
The Saudi embassy in Washington did not immediately return CNBC’s request for comment. The Saudi energy ministry and U.S.
Department of Energy did not respond to Reuters. The State Department told Reuters it does not comment on pending legislation.
The NOPEC legislation would amend existing U.S. law, allowing the Justice Department to sue foreign countries for working together
to limit oil supplies and influence prices.
That represents an existential threat to OPEC. The 14-nation producer group regulates global oil supply by setting output limits for
each member during times of oversupply.
Capping output pushes up the cost of crude. Since OPEC nations depend on oil revenues to balance their budgets, the line between
balancing the market and filling domestic coffers has always been blurry.
Saudi government expenditure has been rising steadily: Oil expert
OPEC and a group of non-member allies led by Russia are currently trying to keep 1.2 million barrels a day off the market through
the first half of 2018.
While some stakeholders — including many U.S. drillers — believe OPEC is essential to keeping supply and demand in balance,
others say the group inflates prices to enrich its members at the expense of oil consumers. That latter view is popular with both
Democratic and Republican lawmakers, who want to keep energy prices low for their constituents.
“For decades, Saudi Arabia has benefited from trading its vast supplies of cheap oil on an unfree market dominated by the OPEC
cartel—at American expense,” said Robbie Diamond, president and CEO of Securing America’s Future Energy, a think tank that
advocates for reducing U.S. dependence on oil.
“Thisreport, if true, would only further prove that Saudi Arabia is willing to go to extreme lengths
to protect its unfair advantage in the global oil market,” Diamond said in a statement.

Oil retaliation against currency would be likely and catastrophic

Cunningham 4-7-19 (Nick Cunningham is a freelance writer on oil and gas, renewable energy, climate change, energy
policy and geopolitics || Saudis Threaten 'Nuclear Option] to Kill Petrodollar, oilprice.com || https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-
General/Saudis-Threaten-Nuclear-Option-To-Kill-Petrodollar.html#)
Saudi Arabia threatened to use the “nuclear option” of undermining the petro-dollar if the U.S.
moves forward with the NOPEC bill.
The U.S. Congress has been mulling legislation, known as the NOPEC bill, which would allow the Justice Department to take antitrust
action against OPEC for manipulating the oil market. Specifically, the bill would remove sovereign immunity countries have from
such action, allowing the U.S. government to sue. In theory, the law would prevent OPEC from coordinating production cuts.
It’s still unclear if the Congress will pass the bill, and it’s also not guaranteed that Trump will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.
Moreover, even if he did sign it, it’s also not a done deal that the Justice Department would take punitive action.
Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia clearly views the threat as a serious one. Reuters reports that Saudi Arabia has threatened to sell its oil in
currencies other than the U.S. dollar if the bill becomes law. Such a move would have enormous implications.
The global oil market is almost entirely conducted in dollars, which provides the foundation for dollar domination in the global
financial system. Introducing new currencies in the oil trade could undercut demand for the dollar, diminish American influence over
global finance, weaken American influence over sanctions, and thus, undercut its geopolitical reach. It’s hard to assess how serious
Saudi Arabia is, but the implications of such a move are far-reaching and hard to overstate.
“The Saudis know they have the dollar as the nuclear option,” a source familiar with the matter told Reuters. Another source put it
this way: “The Saudis say: let the Americans pass NOPEC and it would be the U.S. economy that would fall apart.”
Some version of the NOPEC legislation has floated around for years, but past U.S. presidents from both parties have opposed the
measure over fears that it would damage the U.S.-Saudi relationship. This time around, the situation is different, for several reasons.
First, Saudi Arabia has seriously damaged its standing in Washington through its war in Yemen and over the murder of Saudi
journalist Jamal Khashoggi. With goodwill evaporating, its grip on the U.S. Congress has weakened.
The House and Senate just passed a bill that cuts off U.S. aid for the Saudi war in Yemen, a historic rebuke to Saudi Arabia as well as
a historic move to weaken the American executive branch’s authority over war. President Trump will likely veto the bill, but a few
years ago, such a vote was unthinkable. Saudi Arabia’s missteps contributed greatly to the passage of the bill.
Another reason why the odds of NOPEC becoming law are greater than ever are because of the unpredictable nature of Trump
himself. He has embraced the Saudi government, but he also uses OPEC as a punching bag. Although the Saudis, to a large degree,
control OPEC decisions, they are distinct entities in Trump’s mind. Only a few days ago he tweeted: “Very important that OPEC
increase the flow of Oil. World Markets are fragile, price of Oil getting too high. Thank you!”
To the extent that oil prices are high and Trump feels that gasoline prices become a political liability, he may feel more compelled to
sign a NOPEC bill.
That brings us back to the Saudi threat to undermine the dollar. If
Riyadh actually carried out such a threat to
switch away from the dollar for oil sales – which is definitely not a sure thing – it would have some eager
partners. China, Russia, Iran and even the European Union have all at times supported some
alternative to the dollar-based international order. The Trump administration’s excessive use of sanctions, and its
bullying of key allies in Europe, have many governments ready for currency substitutes.
Russia has tried to sell oil in euros while China setup a yuan-denominated oil
As Reuters notes,
contract in Shanghai to rival the dollar. Iran has also eagerly tried to promote oil sales in other
currencies in order to skirt U.S. sanctions. The EU setup a special purpose vehicle to help European companies
continue to do business with Iran, and it also recently set up a working group to promote the euro as an alternative to the dollar.
To date, those efforts have done little to undercut dollar domination. But a Saudi decision to diversify away from the
dollar would be the most powerful move yet.
However, there are plenty of reasons why this scenario won’t play out. The bill may not pass the U.S. Congress to begin with. But
even if it became law, the Saudis have plenty of obstacles standing in their way, not the least of which is their currency peg with the
dollar. Riyadh is also dependent on the U.S. military alliance, and dumping the dollar would put that in jeopardy. Those reasons
alone might deter Saudi Arabia from moving forward with currency alternatives.
A separate threat, which is arguably more doable from the Saudi standpoint, would be to produce oil at maximum levels to crash
prices. OPEC officials have reportedly been telling Wall Street executives that they would be forced to take such action if the NOPEC
bill becomes law. “NOPEC legislation won’t serve the U.S. interest,” OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Barkindo said in March in
Houston at the CERAWeek Conference.

Saudi Arabia will only use the U.S. dollar if it’s in their interest
Davies 6/30/19 Logan Davies is a Regional Manager in the Banking Services industry, and the director of the non-profit
organization, Voluntaryism in Action. He graduated from Middle Georgia State University with a degree in Business Administration .
"The Petrodollar's Influence On US Foreign Policy - Eccentric Economics"https://beinglibertarian.com/petrodollars-influence-us-
foreign-policy/
There is a considerable chance you have heard that the US government invades countries and steals their oil, and the resource being a driving factor in our foreign policy. This is
somewhat correct. Although it may be on a smaller and hushed scale, the government isn’t necessarily invading countries, stealing their oil and proceeding to ship barrels of it
back home. One may counter that the US invades countries that are rich in oil, and then maintains an influential presence and places powerful US companies there to conduct the
export of the valuable resource, and this is a fair assumption. However, the US government’s presence in the Middle East isn’t necessarily to appropriate oil, rather ensure the
longevity of the petrodollar. The petrodollar’s dawn dates back to the 1940s, particularly after WW2. At the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, the US dollar was established as
the world’s reserve currency. The biggest takeaway from the conference was that since the US held most of the world’s gold, it promised to redeem gold to countries in exchange
for US dollars. In 1945, President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with the King of Saudi Arabia and formalized an alliance. This cemented a relationship between the dollar and oil,
though its marriage would not be knitted until decades later. Excessive spending in the 1960s on various government programs and the Federal Reserve’s manipulation caused
excess dollars to circulate the international economic environment, predictably decreasing its value. This made other countries exchange their dollars for gold at a faster rate, most
notably Britain in the early 1970s. To stop the drain, Nixon removed the US dollar from the gold standard and defaulted on its promise to redeem gold for dollars, which in turn
informally ended the Bretton Woods agreement. Since the dollar was no longer redeemable in gold nor backed by any substance of value, countries had no incentive to continue
utilizing the dollar as the world reserve currency. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) began discussing accepting payments other than the US dollar,
including gold. After removing the US dollar from the gold standard and inciting a shock and widespread inflation, coupled with another shock induced by OPEC’s embargo on
nations supporting Israel, the US needed a resolution that would attract countries to keep the dollar as their reserve. With Saudi Arabia being one of the most prominent and
powerful members of OPEC, they and the US strengthened their economic alliance in an agreement known as the United States-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic
Cooperation. With Saudi Arabian influence, OPEC agreed to use US dollars for oil contracts, and would then recycle the US dollars back to the US. In exchange, the US promised
to keep the House of Saud in power to ensure the US dollar would be utilized for oil trade. This agreement officially gave birth to the petrodollar.
Concisely, an important factor of the US dollar’s value is its dependency on oil trade and the
currency being exchanged between exporting and importing nations. It should be noted, even if the
US isn’t involved in trade between paticular nations, they use US dollars to purchase the oil . This creates an artificial

demand for the US dollar. It is a medium of exchange backed by virtually nothing, with its value being derived from its
exchange utility and, of course, debt. The US dollar is a global currency, and the vast majority of
international transactions are priced in US dollars. Therefore, oil-exporting countries receive revenue in US
dollars. Due to its widespread use, the national income of many oil-exporting nations is dependent upon the value of the dollar. With
the historic market volatility of oil prices, countries that are dependent on the exportation of oil peg their currency to the US dollar,
and do this in the instance the value of the dollar falls, making all of their goods and services in their economies fall to prevent
damaging inflation or deflation. In due time, oil-exporting nations began branching out to ensure their economies did not depend
solely on oil and thus experience the dreaded Dutch disease. These nations began to recycle their US dollars through sovereign wealth
funds, which are invested into non-oil-related ventures essentially making them less dependent on oil. To the alarm of the US, 70% of
the 700 billion investable reserve funds are untraceable. If it is invested in US treasury bonds, a mass withdrawal could destabilize the
dollar. Most countries won’t attempt this, however, since the US is one of OPEC’s biggest customers. However, countries that refuse
to use or attempt to discard the petrodollar for international trade make trade agreements with one another, using their preferred
currencies instead of the petrodollar. Some of examples of these countries are Russia, Iran and Venezuela. A notable nation that faced
repercussions and military actions for its attempt to use gold instead of US dollars was Libya. Conclusively, the US dollar relies
heavily, but not exclusively, on its use as a medium of international exchange, and it is vital nations play along and continue to utilize
it. The history of the petrodollar offers a convincing explanation of why the US is consistently involved in Middle Eastern affairs. It
must continue to satisfy Saudi Arabian interests to ensure they continue to use the US
dollar, and install governments and regimes in nations that will employ the petrodollar to
ensure the currency’s longevity.
 AT Won’t Retal - Yes Alternatives
A convergence of other factors means the plan tips everything over the brink
Paul ’18 (1/29/18, Ron Paul || Ron Paul is a former member of Congress and Distinguished Counselor to the Mises Institute|| A
Growing List of Threats to the Dollar, Mises Institute ||https://mises.org/power-market/growing-list-threats-dollar)
Last week the Senate confirmed Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve Chairman by a vote of 84-13. This is in contrast to the contentious
debates and closer votes over Janet Yellen’s confirmation in 2014 and Ben Bernanke’s confirmation for a second term in 2010.
Powell benefited from a perception that the economy’s recovery from the 2007-08 meltdown proves that the Fed is a capable
manager of monetary policy. However, the perceptions of economic recovery and Federal Reserve competence are both far from
the truth.
The economy may seem to have recovered, but the recovery is not built on a firm foundation. Instead it rests on
Fed-created bubbles in areas such as automobile sales, credit cards debt, student loan debt, stocks, and even a new housing bubble.
The most dangerous bubble is the government debt bubble. The Fed facilitates deficit spending by monetizing
the federal debt. The desire to enable Congress’ spending addiction is a major reason why the Fed cannot significantly raise interest
rates, as increasing rates could increase federal debt payments to unsustainable levels. This may be one reason why President
Trump has reversed course and endorsed low interest rates. Of course, all first-term presidents want low interest rates since they
believe the low rates boost the economy and thus help them win reelection.
China is pressuring
One of the issues Powell will face is increasing challenges to the dollar’s world reserve currency status.
Saudi Arabia to price oil in Chinese yuan instead of in American dollars. China and other
countries may take other steps, such as halting purchases of Treasury bonds, that could weaken
the dollar. The threats to the dollar’s world reserve currency status will increase as concerns
about US government and private sector debt, as well as resentment over US militarism and
protectionism, grow.
The dollar still maintains its reserve currency status not because the dollar is strong, but because other countries’ currencies are
weak. However, unless the US gets its economic house in order, that may not long be the case.
A new challenge to the dollar’s status is emerging from the private sector as more individuals seek alternatives to
government-created fiat currency. The dramatic increase in the value of bitcoins may very well be another Fed-created
bubble, but it is one fueled in part by desire to be free of the Fed’s ever-depreciating paper dollars.
Another sign of the people’s rejection of the Fed is the passage of state laws recognizing gold
and silver as legal tender. Arizona passed such a law last year and Wyoming will soon consider a
similar bill. As the failure of our current system becomes more apparent, more states will give their citizens freedom from the
Fed’s money monopoly.
Much to new Fed Chairman Powell’s chagrin, support for the Audit the Fed bill remains high. As knowledge of how the Fed
endangers prosperity grows, the pressure on Congress to pass Audit the Fed will prove irresistible.
Jerome Powell may seem to be assuming the Fed chairmanship at a time of increasing prosperity and renewed respect for the Fed.
However, the prosperity is an illusion built on a series of Fed-created bubbles whose bursting will cause a major economic downturn.
This will increase both the growing challenges to the dollar’s world reserve currency status and the number of people seeking
Powell could be the last Fed chairman if the next Fed-
alternatives to Federal Reserve-created fiat currency.
created economic crisis leads the people to force Congress to audit and then end the Fed.

Saudi is incentivized to retaliate with the assurances of other partners, like

Russia and China—that turns case on Russian expansionism
Turak ’18 (10/23/18, Natasha Turak || Natasha Turak is a correspondent for CNBC, with areas of focus in foreign direct
investment, emerging markets, commodities, geopolitics, economic development and geopolitical risk || Threats of US sanctions
could accelerate a Saudi shift eastward, CNBC ||https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/23/threats-of-us-sanctions-could-accelerate-a-
saudi-shift-eastward.html)
As the fallout over the killing of Saudi journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi continues, age-old alliances are being tested.
In contradiction to President Donald Trump, who has voiced opposition to any interference in U.S. weapons sales to Saudi Arabia,
members of Congress are openly calling for sanctions on America’s number one arms customer.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday announced a hold on arms sales to the kingdom for the time being, a move lauded by
But some now fear that severing arms sales to the Saudis will simply
many in the international community.
push them to turn eastward.
“If the U.S. and West in general move toward some meaningful sanctions of Saudi Arabia, we
would be joking to imagine that the Saudis would just sit down and accept it, ” Ayham Kamel, head of
Eurasia Group’s Middle East and North Africa practice, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” Monday.
“The Saudis I think will begin to tilt — they were already doing that beforehand — they’ll be doing more business with China and
Russia. I doubt Mr. Putin would’ve given the Saudis much trouble with this crisis as Mr. Trump has.”
Testing ties
Khashoggi, a columnist for the Washington Post and frequent critic of the Saudi royal family, disappeared after entering the Saudi
consulate in Istanbul on October 2. Turkish officials allege he was murdered and dismembered by a Saudi hit squad. After initially
insisting that Khashoggi left the consulate unharmed, the Saudi government last week said that he died in a “fistfight” while in the
building, but provided few details and no evidence. Multiple investigations are underway.
The scandal has prompted scores of ministers and CEOs to withdraw from a major international summit being held this week in
Riyadh, aimed at showcasing Saudi Arabia’s investment opportunities. But while U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has pulled
out along with heavyweight American CEOs like Jamie Dimon and Larry Fink, the heads of Russia’s direct investment fund (RDIF) will
still be in attendance.
An opportunity for Russia and China?
Saudi Arabia has already been increasing business with the Russians and the Chinese. In June,
Vladimir Putin hosted Saudi Crown Prince at the Kremlin, where the two agreed to “expand
cooperation in oil and gas matters” after working together on output deals to stabilize markets
amid fluctuating global crude prices.
And October of last year saw the first-ever visit of a Saudi monarch — King Salman — to Russia, during which a $1 billion joint
investment fund was created and 15 cooperation agreements were signed in the areas of technology, defense and agriculture,
including Moscow’s readiness to sell Riyadh its S-400 missile defense system.
China, meanwhile, is the kingdom’s largest trading partner, with $42 billion in bilateral trade in
2017. Last March, the two signed a raft of deals worth a reported $65 billion in sectors ranging
from energy to space technology. Some in Riyadh have also talked of trading oil in yuan
instead of dollars as retaliation for potential U.S. sanctions.
But as trade tensions with the U.S. continue to put strain on China’s economy, it is likely to lay low at this stage to avoid further
conflict with the U.S. administration. Additionally, China is far from able to match U.S. weapons production in terms of sophistication
and capabilities, defense experts say. Beijing sold just $20 million in arms to the Saudis last year, compared to $3.4 billion in exports
from the U.S., according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
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.
But would it collapse? “Not necessarily immediately,” the analyst said. “But it would certainly be much weaker than it is today.”

Rising Chinese ambition guarantees the plan triggers a laundry list of impacts
Guzman ’18 (8/16/18, Timothy Alexander Guzman || is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on political,
economic, media and historical spheres. He has been published in Global Research, The Progressive Mind, European Union
Examiner, News Beacon Ireland, WhatReallyHappened.com, EIN News and a number of other alternative news sites. He is a
graduate of Hunter College in New York City. || The Currency War Will Escalate as China's Petro-Yuan Challenges the US Military-
Backed Petro-Dollar, Global Research||https://www.globalresearch.ca/a-currency-war-will-escalate-as-chinas-petro-yuan-is-set-to-
challenge-the-u-s-military-backed-petro-dollar/5616456)
China (the largest holder of U.S. debt) is the largest importer of oil, while Russia, one of the
largest exporters of oil in the world have agreed to use the petro-Yuan to bypass the petro-
dollar. The petro-Yuan threatens the U.S. dollar’s hegemony around the globe as several nations
have recently demonstrated as they all share an interest in joining the transition from the U.S.
dollar to the Yuan for oil transactions including Washington’s arch enemies Iran, Venezuela and
even Indonesia (currently not on Washington’s hit list).
The mainstream-media has been reporting on the latest developments concerning China’s plan to bypass the dollar and introduce
the petro-Yuan to the international community in an article by CNBC titled ‘China has grand ambitions to dethrone the dollar. It may
make a powerful move this year’:
China is looking to make a major move against the dollar’s global dominance, and it may come as early
as this year. The new strategy is to enlist the energy markets’ help: Beijing may introduce a new way to price oil in coming months —
but unlike the contracts based on the U.S. dollar that currently dominate global markets, this benchmark would use China’s own
currency. If there’s widespread adoption, as the Chinese hope, then that will mark a step toward challenging the greenback’s status
as the world’s most powerful currency.
China is the world’s top oil importer, and so Beijing sees it as only logical that its own currency should price the global economy’s
most important commodity. But beyond that, moving away from the dollar is a strategic priority for
countries like China and Russia. Both aim to ultimately reduce their dependency on the
greenback, limiting their exposure to U.S. currency risk and the politics of American sanctions
regimes
Washington is on a collision course for another war with North Korea with U.S. President Donald Trump leading the charge. With
the power of the U.S. dollar on life support, the U.S. empire of debt continues to use the threat
of war and in some cases, wage actual wars around the world namely Iran, Syria and Venezuela
which have been on Washington’s hit list for some time. Iran and Russia are already slowly
transitioning away from the U.S. dollar to avoid any future economic sanctions imposed by
Washington. Venezuela is also ready and willing to make its move against the U.S. dollar. Reuters did report on the decision
made by the Maduro government to implement a new system of international payments for its oil exports. The report headlined
with ‘Venezuela’s Maduro says will shun U.S. dollar in favor of yuan, others’ quoted what Maduro had said during a session of the
National Constituent Assembly at Palacio Federal Legislativo in Caracas, Venezuela:
“Venezuela is going to implement a new system of international payments and will create a basket of currencies to free us from the
“If
dollar,” Maduro said in an hours-long address to a new legislative superbody, without providing details of the new mechanism.
they pursue us with the dollar, we’ll use the Russian ruble, the yuan, yen, the Indian rupee, the
euro,” Maduro said
Another recent article published by CNBC ‘China will ‘compel’ Saudi Arabia to trade oil in Yuan — and that’s going to affect the US
dollar’ interviewed Carl Weinberg a chief economist and a managing director at High Frequency Economics about how the US dollar
will lose its global dominance in the near future once Saudi Arabia will be forced to use the petro-Yuan since China is the world’s top
importer of oil:
Carl Weinberg, chief economist and managing director, said Beijing stands to become the most dominant global player in oil demand
since China usurped the U.S. as the “biggest oil importer on the planet.”
Saudi Arabia has “to pay attention to this because even as much as one or two years from now,
Chinese demand will dwarf U.S. demand, ” Weinberg said. “I believe that yuan pricing of oil is
coming and as soon as the Saudis move to accept it — as the Chinese will compel them to do
— then the rest of the oil market will move along with them”
The U.S. dollar is slowly losing its’ status as the world’s reserve currency, so is a war with China a possibility? Would the U.S. attack
North Korea as a stern warning to China or would it bring China into the conflict in an attempt to save the U.S. dollar? Saddam
Hussein wanted to trade in Euro’s instead of the U.S. dollar for Iraq’s oil exports and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi wanted the Gold
Dinar to dethrone the U.S. dollar in the continent of Africa. The decisions made by both Iraq and Libya had consequences that led to
their destruction by U.S. and NATO forces. Can the U.S. do the same to China? I highly doubt it since China has a formidable military
that can defend itself against any U.S. attack. China is certainly not Iraq nor Libya. So will there be a war against China in the long
term? With the U.S. steadily collapsing at a slow pace, Washington would do anything to survive. The U.S. dollar supports the
Military-Industrial Complex and its destructive and very expensive adventures around the world.
The launch of the petro-Yuan will accelerate the process in what we can call De-Dollarization.
However, there are some people in the mainstream-media that are not convinced that the petro-Yuan will overthrow the U.S. dollar
anytime soon, for instance, David Fickling from Bloomberg News recently wrote ‘The Petroyuans time hasn’t come’ said:
Look, for instance, at the most-traded product on the Dalian Commodity Exchange in China, iron ore. While mainland commodity
markets have seen febrile activity in recent years, bid-ask spreads are still several times higher than those on major contracts traded
in London and New York. That makes trading more costly, volatility higher, and price discovery weaker — and as a major consumer
of crude, Beijing ought to be opposed to that sort of change.
The plan turns Saudi Arabia into one of our rivals and incentivizes a switch from
the dollar—the only reason it hasn’t yet is because of strong ties with the US
Wearden ’09 (10/6/09, Graeme Wearden || Wearden tracks the latest world business, economic and financial news in our
daily liveblog. Previously he worked as a technology journalist at CNET Network || US rivals 'plotting to end oil trading in dollars,'
The Guardian ||https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/oct/06/oil-us-dollar-threat-to-america)
China, Russia, Japan and several of the most powerful Gulf States are actively plotting to end the
decades-old practice of buying and selling oil in dollars, the Independent claimed today.
The newspaper said the plan is for the US currency to be replaced for trading oil by a basket of
currencies, including the Japanese yen, the Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, single
currency for the Gulf states. If executed, the move would be a significant blow to the dollar's
position as the premier world currency and would potentially threaten America's position as the
world's leading economy.
According to the Independent, gold could be used as a temporary replacement for the dollar while the new currency basket was
implemented.
"Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work
on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars," it claimed.
"Chinese financial sources believe President Barack Obama is too busy fixing the US economy to concentrate on the extraordinary
implications of the transition from the dollar in nine years' time. The current deadline for the currency transition is 2018," added.
The dollar fell by around 0.4% against a basket of other currencies following the report. This
pushed gold to a new all-time high of $1,035 per ounce.
The report was swiftly denied by several of the world's biggest oil producers. Muhammad al-Jasser, head of the Saudi Arabian
central bank, claimed it was "absolutely incorrect", while Russian finance minister Dmitry Pankin and a Kuwaiti oil minister both
denied discussing a move away from the dollar.
A source within the United Arab Emirates central bank also told Reuters that it would be sticking with the greenback.
A flawed system?
But analysts believe that the dollar's long-term future as the currency for oil trading is indeed in doubt.
"China, Russia and many Middle East countries already have large dollar reserves. They want to
stop them getting higher, and may even want to star t diversifying them into other currencies,"
pointed out David Hart, oil and gas analyst at investment bank Hanson Westhouse.
For years, economists have speculated about how long oil would continue to be traded in dollars. Critics argue that the current
system is flawed; oil importers are forced to buy dollars to pay for their fuel, while exporters are left with billions of dollars which
they often hold in reserve or reinvest in the US economy. The result, they say, is that the dollar's position as the global reserve
currency is reinforced. Thus, the US economy is supported as any devaluation would cause damage across the world. Most of China's
$2tn (£1.24tn) of foreign currency reserves are in dollars, for example.
Hart said that it is inevitable that the dollar's dominance over the oil market will be broken eventually, possibly sooner than 2018. He
believes the transition would happen slowly, rather than a sudden switch.
"Let's face it, bilateral trade between China and these other countries is growing, so you can see why there is interest in matching up
the currencies," said Hart. "If China and Russia are trading oil, why would they want to do that solely in
dollars?"

Saudi Arabia will be spurred on by Russia and China—no longer needs to listen
to the US
Pieraccini ’17 10/4/17, Federico Pieraccini || He is an Independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs,
conflicts, politics and strategies || Challenging the Dollar: China and Russia's Plan from Petroyuan to Gold, Strategic Culture
Foundation || https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/10/04/challenging-dollar-china-russia-plan-from-petroyuan-gold/
Beijing has started putting strong pressure on Riyadh to start accepting yuan payments for oil
instead of dollars, as are other countries such as the Russian Federation. For Riyadh, this is an almost
existential issue. Riyadh is in a delicate situation, dedicated as it is to keeping the US dollar tied to oil, even though its
main ally, the US, has pursued in the Middle East a contradictory strategy, as seen with the JCPOA agreement. Iran, the main
regional enemy of Saudi Arabia, was able to have sanctions lifted (especially from Europeans countries) thanks to the JCPOA. In
addition, Iran was able to pursue a historic victory with its allies in Syria, gaining a preeminent role in the region and aspiring to
become a regional powerhouse. Riyadhis obliged to obey the US, an ally that does not care about its fate
in the region (Iran is increasingly influential in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon) and is even competing in
the oil market. To make matters worse for Washington, China is Riyadh’s largest customer; and considering
the agreements with Nigeria and Russia, Beijing can safely stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia
should Riyadh continue to insist on receiving payment only in dollars. This would badly hurt the
petrodollar, a perverse system that damages China and Russia most of all.
For China, Iran and Russia, as well as other countries, de-dollarization has become a pressing issue. The
number of countries that are beginning to see the benefits of a decentralized system, as
opposed to the US dollar system, is increasing. Iran and India, but also Iran and Russia, have
often traded hydrocarbons in exchange for primary goods, thereby bypassing American
sanctions. Likewise, China's economic power has allowed it to open a 10-billion-euro line of credit to Iran to circumvent recent
sanctions. Even the DPRK seems to use cryptocurrencies like bitcoin to buy oil from China and bypass US sanctions. Venezuela
(with the largest oil reserves in the world) has just started a historic move to completely
renounce selling oil in dollars, and has announced that it will start receiving money in a basket of currencies without US
dollars. (This is not to mention the biggest change to have occurred in the last 40 years). Beijing will buy gas and oil from
Russia by paying in yuan, with Moscow being able to convert yuan into gold immediately thanks to the Shanghai
International Energy Exchange. This gas-yuan-gold mechanism signals a revolutionary economic change
through the progressive abandonment of the dollar in trade.

Trump administration actions are pushing China and Saudi Arabia together—
unique convergence of factors means the plan guarantees Saudi retaliation
Hatfield ’18 (12/18/18, Matthew Hatfield || writer for the Harvard Political Review || The Worrisom Deal: China and Saudi
Arabia, Harvard Political Review || https://harvardpolitics.com/world/the-worrisome-deal-china-and-saudi-arabia/)
In the end, the linchpin of this relationship is Saudi Arabia’s confidence in the United States dollar,
as it indicates the weight of the Saudi’s trade surplus power. If these conditions are fulfilled, any cheating or straying from Saudi
Arabia’s under-the-table agreement would be illogical and detrimental. However, the United States’ continuing trade and fiscal
Combine this with the unforeseen rise of China
deficits are weakening the dollar and Saudi petrodollar holdings.
and conciliatory actions by China towards Saudi Arabia, and the United State’s petrodollar is in
obvious trouble.
Earlier this year, the Chinese Ambassador Li Huaxin was pictured with Saudi officials as he praised
Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which calls for stronger economic cooperation between the two
nations. This pact pressures Saudi Arabia to adopt the “petro-yuan,” which would effectively
axe the petrodollar. Although Saudi Arabia relies heavily on U.S. military power, Saudi Arabia warming ties with China
closeness are alarming. China’s growing economy and standing in the world could undermine the attitude towards the United States.
Above anything else, a shift in alliances could threaten America ’s standing in the Middle East
and world.
The prospective decline of American power through the destabilization of the petrodollar could disrupt a balance of power that has
ensured relative world peace since the Cold War. A weak US economy would leave the nation with a weaker and drive a new dual-
hegemony between Russia and China, who signed an Eurasian Economic Cooperation pact on May 17th in Astana. As Russia
continues to “heat” Europe through its natural gas reserves, which are not sold via the dollar, taking global energy off the dollar – by
taking it off of oil altogether – is a future possibility.
In the last few months, the United States’ reaction to the Chinese-Saudi Arabia negotiations have been rather quiet with little report
to no media attention . With President Trump’s continued rhetoric and talk, it is clear that tariffs and a trade war will be of continual
focus, at least much more relative to the possible attack at the petrodollar, and indirectly, at inflation in the United States.
Time will tell if President Trump continues with the United States’ historic and desperate protectionism of the petrodollar. However ,
as other nations like China and Russia rise to power, America should be weary of confrontation
in this region. In the end, America has an interesting competitive advantage in its petrodollar deal with regional powers like
Saudi Arabia. A final wild card–better energy technology and natural gas, especially from Russia and
Iran–can weaken OPEC supremacy over the oil market, and thus the petrodollar. However, this is
not as dangerous as Chinese intervention into crushing the petrodollar. Nevertheless, with a trade war
ensuing, a new battle is in the horizon and time will tell what happens.
 AT Won’t Retal - Arms Key
Saudi Arabia’s number one priority is arms—strong relations now with the US
proves—the plan is more likely than OPEC to trigger the link
Hennigan ’18 (10/18/18, W.J. Hennigan || W.J. Hennigan covers the Pentagon and national security issues in Washington
DC, worked for more than 8 years at the LA Times || What Makes the US-Saudi Relationship so Special? Weapons, Oil, and 'An Army
of Lobbyists,' TIME ||https://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 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.
“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.
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.
“We have other very good allies in the Middle East, but if you look at Saudi Arabia: They’re an ally and they’re a tremendous
purchaser of not only military equipment, but other things,” Trump said Wednesday in the Oval Office.
It was the President’s latest attempt to trumpet $400 billion in business deals that his
administration signed in May 2017 during a two-day visit to Saudi Arabia. The eye-popping figure
includes $110 billion in military sales, which analysts point out is misleading because it represented letters of interest and not
firmed-up contracts.
Saudi Arabia has thus far only committed to purchase $14.5 billion-worth of equipment since the announcement was made 17
The Administration says the Saudis are currently pursuing more than $114 billion in
months ago.
military hardware.
But even if the kingdom moves forward with the sales, the transactions wouldn’t be worth it, according to William D. Hartung,
director of the arms and security project at the Center for International Policy. “Jobs are no excuse for arming a regime with Saudi
Arabia’s dismal human rights record, whether it is its role in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi or its indiscriminate bombing of civilians in
Yemen,” he said.
The Khashoggi case has caused an escalating debate on Capitol Hill over the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Lawmakers on both sides have
called for a reappraisal if the kingdom is found responsible for Khashoggi’s disappearance or death.
James Carafano, a vice president at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, says it’s critical that Washington doesn’t rush
policy changes on such an enduring alliance until the facts are clear. “This isn’t an episode of ‘Law & Order.’ This is a murder
investigation and a murder investigation takes a lot of time,” he said.
The Trump Administration has repeatedly called for patience. On Thursday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters outside
the White House that the U.S. will give Saudi Arabia a “few more days” to “conduct a complete, thorough investigation.”
“We’re all going to get to see the response from Saudi Arabia to this,” he said. “When we see that, we’ll get a chance to determine—
all of us will get a chance to make a determination as to the credibility of the work that went into that, whether it’s truly accurate,
fair, and transparent in the very way they made a personal commitment to me, and ultimately made a personal commitment to the
president when they spoke to him.”
Before taking the short walk back into the White House, he added that Saudi Arabia was also “an important strategic alliance of the
United States. We need to be mindful of that as well.”

Blocking arm sales uniquely causes petrodollar collapse

NA 18 11/20/19"The Decline And Fall Of The Petrodollar." https://seekingalpha.com/article/4223468-decline-fall-petrodollar
There are several studies on how the petrodollar system functions, and the IMF has article after article about how the flow of
petrodollars influences the global economy. The collapse of the petrodollar has been examined in detail in the economic collapse
blog. What is clear and should be taken into account by investors is that the US by virtue of the dollar being the dominant global
reserve currency and the most-traded currency in Forex markets enjoys a special status. The US can have huge balance of trade
US exports dollars to keep the global
deficits and still have a currency that is in demand. Practically the
economy supplied with liquidity, and a good part of the demand for dollars is due to the
oil markets because oil is the most important commodity traded internationally. Recent developments indicate that US dollar
global dominance is going to be challenged. Russia has built up a system for payments that bypasses the US dollar, and China and
Russia have set up payment systems that do not require dollars. This is a recent new development. Iraq and Iran are in discussions to
avoid the US dollar and Euro for oil transactions. The EU has so far only voiced interest in setting up a payment system that does not
require dollars. It is quite possible that the US dollar will further increase in value in the short term due to economic conditions, but
the long-term prospect for the dollar is negative. One reason for this is that the US has taken on far more debt than it should have.
The current federal projected budget deficit for 2019 is over one trillion. That will be added to the current debt level that is over 21.7
trillion and still rising. Take a look at the debt clock. As mentioned above the trade balance is deep in the red and has been for some
time. The reason why this is so and the dollar can still keep its value is that the demand for dollars is slackening off at a slow pace as
the US provides liquidity for the global economic system. China holds over one trillion dollars of US securities and thus finds itself in
the embarrassing situation of planning to promote the renminbi as the most important global reserve currency while not wanting to
lose substantial amounts of money because of the falling value of the US dollar. The PBoC also insists on regulating the outflow of
money and so far the renminbi has not fully penetrated the global Forex market. The role of Saudi Arabia is a key
one in the oil business, and investors should pay attention if the Saudis decide to accept currencies other than US dollars
as payment for crude oil. Once Saudi Arabia frees itself from the petrodollar strait jacket, other countries may do the same with a
consequent diminution of demand for US dollars. The agreement that Saudi Arabia entered into with Russia to buy the S-400 anti-
The proposal of blocking
missile system is an indication that the Saudis have established close ties with the Russians.
US arms sales to Saudi Arabia is a symptom that US-Saudi relations are not what they
used to be. This is a new development and bodes ill for the future of the petrodollar.
 AT Won’t Retal - 1973 Deal
The plan would break 1973 petro-dollar deal with Saudi that was based on the
dollar
Henderson ‘14 (12/2/14, Andrew Henderson || Henderson is the world's most sought-after consultant on legal offshore
tax reduction, investment immigration, and global citizenship. He works exclusively with six- and seven-figure entrepreneurs and
investors who want to "go where they're treated best". || How to Survive the Death of Petrollars and a Reserve Currency, Nomad
Capitalist || https://nomadcapitalist.com/2014/12/02/petrodollar-contrarian/)
LEG NUMBER 1: THE PETRODOLLARS BEGINNING AND DEMISE
I. The Beginning
The date was 1971 when Richard Nixon announced that America would not be able to meet their obligations and ended the dollars
backing by gold. In more simplistic terms, America defaulted and the value of the dollar came under substantial pressure.
With equities real values being desecrated, GDP plummeting, unemployment and the general cost of living increasing as wages
declined, a term was forged to describe America – stagflation.
Stagflation is a condition of slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment – a time of stagnation – accompanied by a rise
in prices, or inflation.
With the dollar weakening against other currencies now free-floating, something had to be done to bring back demand for the ever
increasing supply of dollars.
Enter 1973 with then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The bargain was intriguing: America had the worlds strongest military and
Saudi Arabia exported the world’s most oil.
Mr. Kissinger charismatically and strategically persuaded the Saudi Arabian King to exclusively
sell oil globally in dollars only.
The demand for US dollars was now deemed irresistible, a complete turn of sentiment from only
a couple years earlier.
The US could now run its massive trade deficits (since 1975 America has never ran a trade surplus) without worry of their dollars
demand declining.
A short series of events went as followed: countries needed oil for their economies. Nations
would export goods to the United States for the dollars.
In turn they would exchange the dollars with Saudi Arabia and receive oil.
Adding insult to injury towards the rest of the world, the OPEC (oil-petroleum exporting) countries took their dollar profits and
reinvested them into America’s bond market for yield.
The decreased borrowing costs along with increased funds ready to buy American debt i.e. bonds, while simultaneously running
trade deficits to finance the governments without financial repercussions, the US was having their cake and eating it in the most
simplest of words.
II. The End
Investors should have no problem connecting recent history of American military action in the
middle east to the 1973 petrodollar deal with Saudi Arabia. First “we” invaded Iraq under the false guise of
weapons of mass destruction. Heck, where does one think they received those weapons of mass destruction in the first place?
Second was Egypt, which America had supported for over 30 years and financed former dictator Hosni Mubarak with over $60 billion
dollars, which in 2011 the US helped provide assistance in overthrowing the same Mr. Mubarak that we had supported years prior.
Third was Libya where we helped topple former ally Muammar Gaddafi. There are many speculations of why America was bombing
the same Libyan military that the US trained and funded. But one can conclude it was in Americas and Israel and Saudi Arabia’s
national interest.
Now and currently it is Syria that The Land of the Free is dealing with. The Saudi Arabian King was very vocal about the bombings
that were called off in 2013 against the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad.
For Saudi Arabia, Syria had become a focal frontline with regards to gain regional influence with Iran, Mr. Assads ally. Now the US,
under the agreement made in 1973, is doing what it can to bring down Assad or risk losing the dollars prestige of the petrodollar.
The US and Saudi Arabia are even supplying arms, funding, and training to the Syrian rebels that are turning right around and using
them against the Western influences with terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the new and dangerous ISIS.
This is not something that
The US and Iran have had warming ties with one another. Saudi Arabia and Iran are enemies.
the Saudis agreed upon with the Petrodollar deal and is causing strain between the two long
time allies.
As of recently, the OPEC nations – led by Saudi Arabia – have been artificially pushing the price of oil down. Investors should see that the Syrian regimes backers i.e. Russia and Iran are suffering with the lower oil prices.
But conversely the biggest damage is being directed towards the US.
Five out of the ten fastest growing economies in the USA are oil producing states. In fact it would be safe to claim that the entire growth since the 2008 recession has been from the energy sector.
American fracking and shale oil wells are marginal and high cost producers unlike the conventional oil producers in Saudi Arabia.
Investors need to critically think and ask themselves questions.
Is Saudi Arabia purposely hindering the US energy boom in fears that if America becomes oil independent they can disband protecting Saudi interest?
Or are America and Saudi Arabia working together to temporarily kill their profits all in the ambition to hurt Russia and Iran?
Maybe Saudi Arabia is pushing oil prices down to help China purchase more oil?
China does supply Saudi Arabia with most of their military arms and with the conflict increasing in the middle east and Syrian rebels (which are Saudi backed) needing weaponry, could this be an agreement for cheap oil prices and arms?
Investors speculating on the cause of why oil is collapsing theorize that this is Saudi Arabia’s way of exerting its dominance and for the rest of the world to not forget whom produces the low cost oil.
It would make sense that Saudi Arabia is defending its market share, hurting its competitors such as Iran and Russia, and also keeping America at its mercy.
The reason being arbitrary, there is one long term trend taking place: the petrodollar has become unstable just as the countries in the middle east have become. A single currency and country controlling the global oil costs will not last another 40 years.
LEG NUMBER 2: COUNTRIES BYPASSING THE DOLLAR
Russia and China signed a massive energy deal over the summer. A $400 billion contract for Russia to supply China with gas.
If that was not monumental enough, the two nations signed another agreement in November.
What is important to note between the lines is that the countries will bypass the US dollar and pay each other in their domestic currencies. With Russia’s rich abundance of resources and the Chinese low cost labor and manufacturing business, this will be a critical
relationship in the future.
The emerging market BRICS – made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – have started bypassing the dollar all together. The nations have established a competitor to the Western backed IMF, The New Development Bank.
The Eastern hemisphere and leadership is growing with an anti-dollar alliance.
Investors will understand that this was an inevitable sequence bound to happen sooner than later. With the sanctions America has imposed on countries such as Iran and Russia, the rest of the developing world does not want their growth hindered by American
imperialism.
Infact, there are 23 (60% of worlds GDP) countries that are setting up swap lines which bypass the dollar and SWIFT payment system, the dollar-based worldwide transaction network. The countries that are setting up swap lines are also US allies such as Germany,
France, and the UK.
Here are a list of swap line examples that bypass the dollar and will lead to a reserve currency collapse…
March 22, 2012 – Australia and China agreed to a 30bln AUD / 200bln Yuan swap line agreement.
March 26, 2013 – Brazil and China set up a currency swap line for 60bln BRL / 190 bln Yuan.
June 22, 2013 – Britain officially set up a currency swap line with China for 2 bln GBP/ 200bln Yuan.
October 9, 2013 – The European Union created a swap line with China for 45bln EUR/ 350 bln Yuan.
November 8, 2104 – Canada and China have agreed upon a
30bln CAD/ 200 bln Yuan currency swap.

It should be obvious that the Chinese are having other central banks hold the Yuan in their reserves.
Since 2008, a weak US economy has contributed to the decline of global dollar reserves and created opportunities for the rest for
the world. This has resulted in a decline of American influence globally and increased the momentum for a de-dollarized world.
The dollar’s dominance was carried over four decades due to the ability to purchase Saudi oil with the paper money.
As investors saw in part one, the Saudi Kingdom is preparing for a new global system and unrest
in the middle east. And the world now seeing the powerful China and Russian gas relations,
countries can now begin to sell their commodities to other countries in their own domestic
currencies without the degradation from American pressure in foreign policy.

Saudi Arabia will ditch the dollar if the US hurts their relations
Zhdannikov et al 19 (Dmitry Zhdannikov, Rania El Gamal, Alex Lawler, Zhdannikov is a
Reuter's energy editor, El Gamal is the Chief Energy Correspondent at Reuters, Lawler is a Senior
Correspondent at Reuters, "Exclusive: Saudi Arabia threatens to ditch dollar oil trades to stop
'NOPOEC' - sources", 4/4/19, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-usa-oil-
exclusive/exclusive-saudi-arabia-threatens-to-ditch-dollar-oil-trades-to-stop-nopec-sources-
idUSKCN1RH008)
Saudi Arabia is threatening to sell its oil in currencies other than the dollar if Washington
passes a bill exposing OPEC members to U.S. antitrust lawsuits, three sources familiar with Saudi energy
policy said.
They said the
option had been discussed internally by senior Saudi energy officials in recent months. Two of
the sources said the plan had been discussed with OPEC members and one source briefed on Saudi oil policy said Riyadh
had
also communicated the threat to senior U.S. energy officials .
The chances of the U.S. bill known as NOPEC coming into force are slim and Saudi Arabia would be unlikely to follow through, but
the fact Riyadh is considering such a drastic step is a sign of the kingdom’s annoyance about potential U.S. legal challenges to OPEC.
In the unlikely event Riyadh were to ditch the dollar, it would undermine the its status as the
world’s main reserve currency, reduce Washington’s clout in global trade and weaken its ability
to enforce sanctions on nation states.
“The Saudis know they have the dollar as the nuclear option ,” one of the sources familiar with the matter said.
“The Saudis say: let the Americans pass NOPEC and it would be the U.S. economy that would fall apart ,” another
source said.
Saudi Arabia’s energy ministry did not respond to a request for comment.
A U.S. state department official said: “as a general matter, we don’t comment on pending legislation.”
The U.S. Energy Department did not respond to a request for comment. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has said that NOPEC could lead
to unintended consequences.
 Link -- Empirics
Canada is an empirical example
Onoszko and Algethami ‘18 (8/8/18, Maciej Onoskzko and Sarah Algethami || Staff members of Bloomberg ||
Canadian dollar whipsaws as row with Saudi Aarbia escalates, Financial Post ||
https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/spat-with-saudi-arabia-intensifies-whipsawing-the-canadian-dollar)
Saudi Arabia is considering additional measures against Canada amid reports it plans to unload its holdings of Canadian stocks and
bonds as a dispute over women’s rights activists intensifies.
Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir, speaking at a news conference in Riyadh, said there was no need for mediation in the dispute.
“Canada knows what it needs to do,” he said.
The Canadian currency dropped as much as 0.5 per cent to 76.21 US cents after the Financial
Times reported that the Saudi Arabia central bank and state pension funds have instructed their
overseas asset managers to dispose of Canadian assets starting Tuesday. The loonie rebounded shortly
afterward to trade 0.1 per cent weaker at 10:03 a.m. in Toronto.
A source at a Saudi bank told Reuters the bank was contacted by the central bank on Wednesday afternoon asking for information
about all their Canadian exposure – investments in Canada and foreign exchange positions.
The bank had received no instructions to sell assets as they do not have any exposure there, the source said.
Saudi Arabia suspended diplomatic ties and halted new trade dealings late Sunday following
comments by Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland criticizing the kingdom for arrests of women’s rights
activists. The kingdom has since escalated its moves against Canada, suspending flights to Toronto and ordering the return of
thousands of students who are studying at Canadian schools.
Saudi Arabia’s deepening row with Canada threatens to scare off regime’s already nervous foreign investors
Saudi Arabia is disposing of Canadian assets ‘no matter the cost’ , FT reports
The cost of landing on Saudi Arabia’s bad side will be big
Russia voiced support for Saudi Arabia in its worsening row with Canada on Wednesday, telling Ottawa it was unacceptable to
lecture the kingdom on human rights.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that human rights should be promoted with respect for specific
national customs and traditions.
“We have always said that the politicisation of human rights matters is unacceptable,” Zakharova said.
“What one probably needs in this situation is constructive advice and assistance rather than criticism from a ‘moral superior’,” she
said.
Since rising to power in 2015, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has courted Western allies to support his reform plans, offering
billions of dollars of arms sales and promising to fight radicalism in the kingdom.
But the row threatens to slow Riyadh’s foreign investment drive, a campaign already unsettled by a series of assertive foreign policy
initiatives by the top oil exporter.
Inflows slowed in recent years mainly due to low oil prices, but regional turmoil doesn’t help, critics of the government say.
“Saudi Arabia simply cannot afford to alienate any other sections of the global community in the midst of its unpopular military
engagement in Yemen, its indirect confrontation with Iran,” commentator Jamal Khashoggi wrote in the Washington Post.
Saudi’s asset sales may not have a big impact on the Canadian currency, although seasonally
thin trading in August
could exacerbate that effect. Saudi holdings of Canadian dollar reserves are between $10 billion
and $25 billion, with the upper end of that estimate representing 10 per cent of daily Canadian
dollar volumes, according to estimates from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
“That’s enough to leave a mark on the loonie in August when volumes are typically lighter, ” said
Bipan Rai, North American head of foreign exchange strategy at CIBC. Still, Rai said the impact on the currency should be
“ephemeral” as bilateral trade between Saudi Arabia and Canada is small.
So far this year, Canada has exported $1.4 billion in merchandise goods to Saudi Arabia and imported $2 billion, according to
Statistics Canada data.
AFF -- Warming Turn
I/T Collapse
 2AC
Collapse good- only way to be able to reduce emissions
Vernon morning star 19 ‘ ( May. 25, 2019 “standard of living is not sustainable”
https://www.vernonmorningstar.com/opinion/standard-of-living-is-not-sustainable/)
The other statement that stood out for me was, “We must be able to afford the solutions if our economies are not to
collapse under the weight of irrational policies.…” Quite a lot is packed into this statement.
First off, as much as we like to think of ourselves as rational, Western economic policies are highly irrational. Our “good life” is based on several actions.
Western societies exploit through military and financial domination as much of the world’s resources as they can.
Our economy is based almost entirely on debt, reliant mainly on the U.S. global reserve currency, the petrodollar,
which the U.S. can “sell” as much of as they can as it is currently required by other countries to
purchase most items (caution: Russia and China are slowly leading others away from the petrodollar and thus U.S. economic control). Our
economy is a consumer-based one, much of which is never recycled or reused and much of that
consumption is debt based.
In 2008, there was a signal about what needs to be done to help the environment from its plague of chemical contaminants. As the economy declined, so

did the carbon emissions. Unfortunately, the best way to help the environment is to collapse our
current economy globally to a non-consumer oriented on e, to one that provides more support to health, education, workers
rights and safety, human rights in general, support for independent farmers, and works towards eliminating all harmful chemicals from the environment.

In short, our standard of living is not sustainable, is not rational, will eventually collapse,
hopefully not cataclysmically. I highly doubt that a significant number of people are willing to
decrease their lifestyle in a significant way in order to change our current
economic/environmental trajectory.

Reducing emissions is key to solve global warming

MacMillan 16 (Amanda MacMillan - a health and science writer who has contributed to
Outside, Shape, Self, Prevention, WebMD, and other publications, “Global Warming 101” –
NRDC, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/global-warming-101)
Here's a simple definition of global warming. (And yes, it's really happening.) Over the past 50 years, the average
global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. And experts see the trend is
accelerating: All but one of the 16 hottest years in NASA’s 134-year record have occurred since 2000. Climate change deniers have
argued that there has been a “pause” or a “slowdown” in rising global temperatures, but several recent studies, including a 2015
paper published in the journal Science, have disproved this claim. And scientists
say that unless we curb global-
warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could increase by up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit
over the next century. In the United States, the burning of fossil fuels to make electricity is the
largest source of heat-trapping pollution, producing about two billion tons of CO2 every year.
Coal-burning power plants are by far the biggest polluters. The country’s second-largest source of carbon pollution is the
transportation sector, which generates about 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emissions a year.

Global warming results in ocean acidification and collapse of the marine food
web- means extinction.
Romm ‘9 (Joe, a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom
Friedman called "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named one of the 25 “Best Blogs of 2010.″ In 2009, Rolling Stone put
Romm #88 on its list of 100 “people who are reinventing America.” Time named him a “Hero of the Environment″ and “The Web’s
most influential climate-change blogger.” Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy
in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at
American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT, “Imagine a World without Fish: Deadly ocean acidification — hard to deny,
harder to geo-engineer, but not hard to stop — is subject of documentary ,” http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/09/02/204589/a-
sea-change-imagine-a-world-without-fish-ocean-acidification-film/,)
Global warming is “capable of wrecking the marine ecosystem and depriving future generations
of the harvest of the seas” (see Ocean dead zones to expand, “remain for thousands of years”). A post on ocean acidification from the
new Conservation Law Foundation blog has brought to my attention that the first documentary on the subject, A Sea Change: Imagine a World without
Fish, is coming out. Ocean acidification must be a core climate message, since it is hard to deny and
impervious to the delusion that geoengineering is the silver bullet. Indeed, a major 2009 study GRL study,
“Sensitivity of ocean acidification to geoengineered climate stabilization ” (subs. req’d), concluded: The results
of this paper support the view that climate engineering will not resolve the problem of ocean acidification,
and that therefore deep and rapid cuts in CO 2 emissions are likely to be the most effective
strategy to avoid environmental damage from future ocean acidification . If you want to understand ocean
acidification better, see this BBC story, which explains: Man-made pollution is raising ocean acidity at least 10
times faster than previously thought, a study says. Or see this Science magazine study, “Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive
“Acidified” Water onto the Continental Shelf” (subs. req’), which found Our results show for the first time that a large section of the
North American continental shelf is impacted by ocean acidification . Other continental shelf regions may also be
impacted where anthropogenic CO2-enriched water is being upwelled onto the shelf. Or listen to the Australia’s ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef
Studies, which warns: The world’s oceans are becoming more acid, with potentially devastating
consequences for corals and the marine organisms that build reefs and provide much of the
Earth’s breathable oxygen. The acidity is caused by the gradual buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2)
in the atmosphere, dissolving into the oceans . Scientists fear it could be lethal for animals with chalky skeletons which make
up more than a third of the planet’s marine life”¦. Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons are at the base of the
marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form their
skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it harder for the animals
to form their skeletal structures (calcify). “Analysis of coral cores shows a steady drop in calcification over the last 20 years,” says
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of CoECRS and the University of Queensland. “There’s not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the
air above and it dissolves into the oceans. “When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification out of business
in the oceans.” (Atmospheric CO2 levels are presently 385 ppm, up from 305 in 1960.) I’d like to see an analysis of what happens when you get to 850
to 1000+ ppm because that is where we’re headed (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm
“¦ the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised” “” 1000 ppm). The CLF post notes: Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warns that an acidic ocean is the “equally evil twin” of climate change. Scott Doney, a
senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution noted in a public presentation that “New England is the most vulnerable region in the
country to ocean acidification.” In June, dozens
of Academies of Science, including ours and China’s, issued a
joint statement on ocean acidification, warned “Marine food supplies are likely to be reduced with
significant implications for food production and security in regions dependent on fish protein,
and human health and wellbeing” and “Ocean acidification is irreversible on timescales of at least
tens of thousands of years.” They conclude: Ocean acidification is a direct consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
To avoid substantial damage to ocean ecosystems, deep and rapid reductions of global CO2 emissions by at least 50% by 2050, and much more
thereafter are needed. We, the academies of science working through the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), call on world leaders to: “¢
Acknowledge that ocean acidification is a direct and real consequence of increasing atmospheric
CO2 concentrations, is already having an effect at current concentrations, and is likely to cause
grave harm to important marine ecosystems as CO2 concentrations reach 450 ppm and above;
“¢ Recognise that reducing the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is the only practicable solution to mitigating ocean acidification; “¢ Within the
context of the UNFCCC negotiations in the run up to Copenhagen 2009, recognise the direct threats posed by increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions to
the oceans and therefore society, and take action to mitigate this threat; “¢ Implement action to reduce global CO2 emissions by at least 50% of 1990
levels by 2050 and continue to reduce them thereafter. If
we want to save life in the oceans “” and save ourselves ,
since we depend on that life “” the time to start slashing carbon dioxide emissions is now .
 EX - Emissions Cause Warming
Emissions cause global warming
C2ES N/D (C2ES - the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions – an independent, nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization working to forge practical solutions to climate change, “Climate Basics”,
https://www.c2es.org/content/climate-basics-for-kids/)
Scientific evidence paints a clear picture: Climate change is happening, it is caused in large part by human activity, and it will have
many serious and potentially damaging effects in the decades ahead. Greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power
plants and other man-made sources—rather than natural variations in climate— are the primary
cause. These emissions include carbon dioxide — the main greenhouse gas — which has
reached a concentration level in our atmosphere that the Earth hasn’t seen for more than
400,000 years. These greenhouse gases act like a blanket, trapping the sun’s warmth near the earth’s surface, and affecting the
planet’s climate system. Today in the United States, electricity and transportation (cars, trucks and planes) are responsible for
almost 60 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. The rest comes from agriculture, industry, such as factories that make products we
use, and from energy we use in our homes and businesses. The
first is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions
responsible for climate change. By choosing cleaner ways to power our homes, offices, and cars, and being more
efficient and less wasteful, we can produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
AFF -- AT Impacts
**AFF Turns DA**
 Oil Volatility
Link Turn - Solving oil volatility ensures the NOPEC doesn’t pass which
preserves dollar heg – NOPEC is key
Cunningham 19 (Nick Cunningham, Nick Cunningham is a freelance writer on oil and
gas, renewable energy, climate change, energy policy and geopolitics. He is based in
Pittsburgh, PA., "Saudis Threaten ‘Nuclear Option’ To Kill Petrodollar", 4/7/19,
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Saudis-Threaten-Nuclear-Option-To-Kill-
Petrodollar.html#)
Saudi Arabia threatened to use the “nuclear option” of undermining the petro-dollar if the U.S.
moves forward with the NOPEC bill.
The U.S. Congress has been mulling legislation, known as the NOPEC bill, which would allow the Justice
Department to take antitrust action against OPEC for manipulating the oil market.
Specifically, the bill would remove sovereign immunity countries have from such action, allowing the U.S. government to sue.
In theory, the law would prevent OPEC from coordinating production cuts.
 ME Instability
Link Turn - Stopping instability in the Middle East is key to keeping dollar
hegemony – the aff solves
Hatfield 18 (Matthew Hatfield, Journalist at Harvard Political Review, "The Worrisome Deal:
China and Saudi Arabia", 12/18/18, https://harvardpolitics.com/world/the-worrisome-deal-
china-and-saudi-arabia/)
In order to stabilize the petrodollar, the United States also needs a stable Middle East . Sanctions are
one way to control Middle Eastern affairs. Because oil is found in so many aspects of world operations, major world deals are made
in dollars and pass through American-connected banks, allowing the U.S. government to monitor, control, and sanction such deals.
Paired with the immense sale of arms and  weapons to Saudi Arabia, the United States provides
countless incentives for the Saudis to stay in the deal, helping Saudi Arabia remain a  prominent
Middle Eastern power.
AT Econ
 N/L
US dollar hegemony won’t collapse the economy
Amadeo 19 (Kimberly Amadeo - 20 years senior-level corporate experience in economic
analysis and business strategy. She received an M.S. in Management from the Sloan School of
Business at M.I.T.Kimberly is the U.S. Economy expert for The Balance, and has been writing for
Dotdash/About.com since 2006, “Top 10 Reasons Why the U.S. Economy Won't Collapse”,
https://www.thebalance.com/us-economy-wont-collapse-3980688)
The U.S. debt is $21 trillion, more than the economy produces in a year, but although the debt-to-GDP ratio is in the danger
zone, it's not enough to cause a collapse. First, the United States prints its money. That means it is in control
of its currency. Lenders feel safe that the U.S. government will pay them back . In fact, the United
States could run a much higher debt-to-GDP ratio than it does now and still not face economic
collapse. Japan is another strong economy that controls its currency. It has had a debt-to-GDP ratio above 200 percent for years. Its economy is
sluggish but in no danger of collapse. The United States won't default on its debt. Most members of Congress realize
a debt default would destroy America's credibility in the financial markets. The tea party Republicans in Congress were a
minority that threatened to default during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis and in 2013. China and Japan are the biggest owners of the U.S. debt,
but they have no incentive to create a collapse. The United States is their largest market. If it fails,
so do their economies. Furthermore, China is not selling all of its dollar holdings. It has remained above $1 trillion since 2013. For more,
see U.S. Debt to China. If anything, the dollar would slowly decline instead of collapse. It fell 40 percent
between 2002 and 2008. It has gotten stronger since then because of the financial crisis. Investors flock to
ultra-safe U.S. Treasurys and the U.S. dollar as a safe haven. The dollar won't be replaced as the world's global currency. The
doomsayers point to gold, the euro, or Bitcoin as a replacement for the dollar. China has said it would like the yuan to replace the dollar. It's true that
the dollar's value is supported by its role, but none of these other alternatives have enough circulation to replace
the dollar. The Fed's quantitative easing program and low fed funds rate won't cause hyperinflation. If anything, these programs have created a
liquidity trap. That's when people, businesses, and banks hoard the extra cash instead of spending or lending it. The real cause of hyperinflation has
been debt repayments to fund wars. The stock market hit new highs in 2018. Stock prices are based on corporate earnings, so that’s a sign of business
prosperity. Consumer
confidence hit an 18-year high in 2018. Consumer spending drives almost 70
percent of the economy. Economic growth is slow but stable. Since the Great Recession, the economy has grown between
1.5 - 2.7 percent per year. According to business cycle theory, a bust only occurs after a boom. That's when GDP is more than 3 percent. It hasn't been
that high since 2005 according to a review of GDP by year. President Obama added to the debt to get us out of recession, not send us into collapse.
Many of these doomsters accuse Obama of deliberately increasing the debt to destroy the United States.

US dollar hegemony won’t collapse the economy

Amadeo 19 (Kimberly Amadeo - 20 years senior-level corporate experience in economic
analysis and business strategy. She received an M.S. in Management from the Sloan School of
Business at M.I.T.Kimberly is the U.S. Economy expert for The Balance, and has been writing for
Dotdash/About.com since 2006, “Top 10 Reasons Why the U.S. Economy Won't Collapse”,
https://www.thebalance.com/us-economy-wont-collapse-3980688)
The U.S. debt is $21 trillion, more than the economy produces in a year, but although the debt-to-GDP ratio is in the danger
zone, it's not enough to cause a collapse. First, the United States prints its money. That means it is in control
of its currency. Lenders feel safe that the U.S. government will pay them back . In fact, the United
States could run a much higher debt-to-GDP ratio than it does now and still not face economic
collapse. Japan is another strong economy that controls its currency. It has had a debt-to-GDP ratio above 200 percent for years. Its economy is
sluggish but in no danger of collapse. The United States won't default on its debt. Most members of Congress realize
a debt default would destroy America's credibility in the financial markets. The tea party Republicans in Congress were a
minority that threatened to default during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis and in 2013. China and Japan are the biggest owners of the U.S. debt,
but they have no incentive to create a collapse. The United States is their largest market. If it fails,
so do their economies. Furthermore, China is not selling all of its dollar holdings. It has remained above $1 trillion since 2013. For more,
see U.S. Debt to China. If anything, the dollar would slowly decline instead of collapse. It fell 40 percent
between 2002 and 2008. It has gotten stronger since then because of the financial crisis. Investors flock to
ultra-safe U.S. Treasurys and the U.S. dollar as a safe haven. The dollar won't be replaced as the world's global currency. The
doomsayers point to gold, the euro, or Bitcoin as a replacement for the dollar. China has said it would like the yuan to replace the dollar. It's true that
the dollar's value is supported by its role, but none of these other alternatives have enough circulation to replace
the dollar. The Fed's quantitative easing program and low fed funds rate won't cause hyperinflation. If anything, these programs have created a
liquidity trap. That's when people, businesses, and banks hoard the extra cash instead of spending or lending it. The real cause of hyperinflation has
been debt repayments to fund wars. The stock market hit new highs in 2018. Stock prices are based on corporate earnings, so that’s a sign of business
prosperity. Consumer
confidence hit an 18-year high in 2018. Consumer spending drives almost 70
percent of the economy. Economic growth is slow but stable. Since the Great Recession, the economy has grown between
1.5 - 2.7 percent per year. According to business cycle theory, a bust only occurs after a boom. That's when GDP is more than 3 percent. It hasn't been
that high since 2005 according to a review of GDP by year. President Obama added to the debt to get us out of recession, not send us into collapse.
Many of these doomsters accuse Obama of deliberately increasing the debt to destroy the United States.
 L/T - Generic - U.S.
US dollar hegemony hurts U.S. economy -- laundry list
Palley 6/20 (Thomas I. Palley - an American economist who has served as the chief economist
for the US–China Economic and Security Review Commission. He is currently Schwartz Economic
Growth Fellow at the New America Foundation, “Why Dollar Hegemony Is Unhealthy” – Yale
University, https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/why-dollar-hegemony-unhealthy)
The US dollar is the world’s premiere currency, with approximately two thirds of world official foreign-exchange holdings being dollars. Moreover,
many countries appear willing to run sustained trade surpluses with the US, supplying everything from t-shirts to Porsches in return for additional dollar
holdings. This willingness to exchange valuable resources for paper IOUs represents a form of dollar tribute. Many foreign policymakers complain about
the special advantage for the US, allowing the nation to run enormous trade deficits without
apparent market sanction. Whereas balance-of-payments considerations constrain other countries
to run tight economic policies, no equivalent constraint appears to hold for the US. This
advantage is rooted in the dollar’s special role as the world’s reserve currency. For the US, one major
benefit of the dollar’s reserve-currency role is that it increases the demand for US financial assets . This drives up
prices of stocks and bonds and lowers interest rates, thereby increasing household wealth and
lowering the cost of borrowing money. Additionally, the US government gets seignories, or an interest-free
loan, from the hundreds of millions in dollar bills held offshore. Printing a $100 bill is almost costless to the US government, but foreigners must give
more than $100 of resources to get the bill. That’s a tidy profit for US taxpayers. Increased foreign demand for US assets also appreciates the dollar,
which is a mixed blessing. On one hand, consumers benefit from lower import prices. On the other ,
it makes US manufacturing less
competitive internationally because an overvalued dollar makes US exports more expensive and
imports cheaper. Reserve-currency status therefore promotes trade deficits and de-
industrialization.
The logic of this third theory is easily illustrated. Over the last decade, while Europe and Japan stagnate, the US has grown on the back of robust consumer spending. This
spending has sucked in imports, helping growth in Europe, East Asia and Latin America, and making the US the major engine of global growth. East Asian countries, especially
China, have been particularly willing to run trade surpluses with the US because this has fuelled export-led growth. These countries rely on exports to keep their factories
operating. Export success then attracts foreign direct investment that advances development. Undervalued exchange rates are vital for this strategy as it keeps exports
competitive. Countries have therefore channeled their trade surpluses into dollars, keeping the dollar overvalued and enabling them to sell in the US market. This explains both
the continuing strong demand for dollars despite the US trade deficit and the dollar’s dominance in official foreign-exchange holdings. Ironically, America’s dispensation from

Countries want to industrialize with full employment, but

trade-deficit discipline stems from other countries’ failure to develop an equivalent of the American consumer.

rely on the US market. It is also why Germany supplies BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes in return
they lack adequate internal demand. Consequently, they must

for paper dollar IOUs. Conventional theory says the dollar will only lose its dominance when countries become saturated

with dollar holdings. At that stage they will cease buying and may even sell dollars, causing the currency to fall. The problem with this story is that countries
have no incentive to sell dollars, as this would kill the golden goose of export-led growth.
 L/T - Generic - International
US dollar hegemony is dangerous for the global economy
Roosevelt Institute 09 (Kimberly Amadeo - policy reforms capable of redefining the
American economy and our democracy. Roosevelt is armed with a transformative vision for the
future, working to move the country toward a new economic and political system, “The Dangers
of ‘Dollar Hegemony’”, https://rooseveltinstitute.org/dangers-dollar-hegemony/)
Rich nations need to recognize that their efforts to squeeze every last drop of advantage from already unfair
finance and trade will only plunge the world into deeper depression . History has shown that while the poor
suffer more in economic collapse, the rich, even as they are financially cushioned by their wealth and advantage, are hurt by the sociopolitical
repercussions of such a collapse, in the form of war, revolution or both. Dollar
hegemony prevents all non-dollar
economies from financing domestic development with sovereign credit , denominated in their own currencies;
it forces them to rely on foreign capital denominated in dollars . Moreover, the exporting economies
are in essence shipping the real wealth created there by low wages and environmental abuse to
importing nations. The dollar-denominated trade surplus earned by exporting nations cannot be spent in their domestic economies without
first converting those dollars into local currencies. But the conversion will create inflation since the wealth behind
the new local currency has already been shipped to the importing nations. Thus, exporting nations, while
starved for capital, have to invest the dollars they earn from low wages and environmental abuse back into the dollar economy, enabling the importing
economies to have more dollars with which to import more. Capital from the dollar economy is in reality debt from the exporting economies, which will
return to the lending economies as foreign capital to invest in the export sector. Dollar
hegemony in essence freely transfers the wealth from
poor economies to rich economies. This free transfer of wealth hurts
workers in both the poor and rich economies by
keeping wages low through cross-border wage arbitrage. Low wages then create overcapacity,
unsupported by demand in every economy.

US dollar hegemony poison global dependence

Yale Global 6/20 (Thomas I. Palley - an American economist who has served as the chief
economist for the US–China Economic and Security Review Commission. He is currently
Schwartz Economic Growth Fellow at the New America Foundation, “Why Dollar Hegemony Is
Unhealthy” – Yale University, https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/why-dollar-hegemony-
unhealthy)
The US dollar holds value for more countries than any other world currency and comprises about two thirds of world’s official foreign-exchange
holdings. This dependence allows the US to run large trade deficits in purchasing a cornucopia of goods – from
Porsches to t-shirts – by distributing paper IOUs in place of actual dollars. Because of a global faith in the voracious appetite of the US consumer,
many countries are complacent about the dollar’s reserve-currency role – and even profit on sales of US
currency in their own economy. Economist Thomas Palley reviews economic theories that explain the dollar’s enormous global worth – and concludes
that other nations’ neglect of investment in their own domestic markets and over-reliance on the
American consumer is fraught with danger. Even when appreciation of the US dollar drove up stocks and bonds and lowered
interest rates, the co-dependent relationship was unhealthy for the US and its commercial partners.
The recent downturn in the world market, following fear of inflation in the US and rising interest
rates, shows the inherent danger. For the sake of world financial stability, Palley urges Europe
and Japan to encourage domestic consumption and reduce their dependence on American
consumers.

Dollar hegemony is harmful, it creates trade deficits and de-industrialization

Palley 06 (Thomas Palley, Palley runs the Economics for Democratic and Open Societies
Project, and is the former chief economist of the US-China Economic & Security Review
Commission. He is the author of “Plenty of Nothing: The Downsizing of the American Dream and
the Case for Structural Keynesianism” (Princeton University Press, 1998), "Why Dollar
Hegemony is Unhealthy", 6/20/06, https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/why-dollar-hegemony-
unhealthy)
WASHINGTON: With US Federal Reserve chairman warning about inflation, the US dollar is in the news these days, and there’s a
sense that the
world economy has become excessively reliant on the dollar. This reliance smacks of
dysfunctional co-dependence whereby the US and the rest of the world both rely on the dollar’s
strength, but neither is well served by it.
The US dollar is the world’s premiere currency, with approximately two thirds of world official foreign-exchange holdings being
dollars. Moreover, many countries appear willing to run sustained trade surpluses with the US, supplying everything from t-shirts to
Porsches in return for additional dollar holdings. This willingness to exchange valuable resources for paper IOUs represents a form of
dollar tribute.
Many foreign policymakers complain about the special advantage for the US, allowing the
nation to run enormous trade deficits without apparent market sanction. Whereas balance-of-payments
considerations constrain other countries to run tight economic policies, no equivalent constraint appears to hold for the US. This
advantage is rooted in the dollar’s special role as the world’s reserve currency.
For the US, one major benefit of the dollar’s reserve-currency role is that it increases the demand for US financial assets. This drives
up prices of stocks and bonds and lowers interest rates, thereby increasing household wealth and lowering the cost of borrowing
money. Additionally, the US government gets seignorage, or an interest-free loan, from the hundreds of millions in dollar bills held
offshore. Printing a $100 bill is almost costless to the US government, but foreigners must give more than $100 of resources to get
the bill. That’s a tidy profit for US taxpayers.
Increased foreign demand for US assets also appreciates the dollar, which is a mixed blessing. On one hand,
consumers benefit from lower import prices. On the other, it makes US manufacturing less competitive
internationally because an overvalued dollar makes US exports more expensive and imports
cheaper. Reserve-currency status therefore promotes trade deficits and de-industrialization.
The conventional explanation of the dollar’s reserve-currency status is a “medium of exchange” story. The US has historically been
the largest and richest currency area, with the largest share of world output and trade. This has provided incentives for other
countries to hold and use dollars. Additionally, the fact that many governments over-issue their own money and create high inflation
encourages foreign citizens to protect themselves by holding dollars instead of domestic currency.
A second theory of reserve currencies, associated with the political left, is based on US military power and the Pax Americana. The
argument is that US military power provides the security that protects the global market system, and New York is the new Rome.
Countries, such as Saudi Arabia, hold reserves in dollars because New York is a political safe haven and because that helps cover the
costs of enforcing the Pax Americana.
These two theories are mutually reinforcing. Thus, to the extent that the dollar is widely used and is also a safe haven, investors tend
to rush into dollars in times of uncertainty. Consequently, central banks in other countries need to accumulate large dollar-reserve
holdings to protect against financial disruptions that result from sudden exits by investors, as happened in East Asia in 1997.
There is a third unrecognized theory that can be labeled the “buyer of last resort” theory of reserve currencies. Put bluntly, the
tribute other countries pay the US through their trade surpluses is the result of their failure to
generate adequate consumption spending in their own markets, be it due to poor income distribution or bad
domestic economic policies. This forces other countries to rely on the American consumer .
The logic of this third theory is easily illustrated. Over the last decade, while Europe and Japan stagnate, the US has grown on the
back of robust consumer spending. This spending has sucked in imports, helping growth in Europe, East Asia and Latin America, and
making the US the major engine of global growth.
East Asian countries, especially China, have been particularly willing to run trade surpluses with the US because this has fuelled
export-led growth. These countries rely on exports to keep their factories operating. Export success then attracts foreign direct
investment that advances development. Undervalued exchange rates are vital for this strategy as it keeps exports competitive.
Countries have therefore channeled their trade surpluses into dollars, keeping the dollar
overvalued and enabling them to sell in the US market. This explains both the continuing strong
demand for dollars despite the US trade deficit and the dollar’s dominance in official foreign-
exchange holdings.
 L/T - U.S. Firms
US dollar hegemony have negative impacts on US firms
Bernanke 16 (Ben S. Bernanke - a Distinguished Fellow in residence with the Economic Studies
Program at the Brookings Institution, as well as a Senior Advisor to PIMCO and Citadel, “The
dollar’s international role: An “exorbitant privilege”?”, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-
bernanke/2016/01/07/the-dollars-international-role-an-exorbitant-privilege-2/)
What else? A great deal of U.S. currency is held abroad, which amounts to an interest-free loan to the United States. However, the
interest savings are probably on the order of $20 billion a year, a small fraction of a percent of U.S. GDP, and that “ seigniorage,”
as it is called, would probably still exist even if the dollar lost ground to other currencies in more-formal
less informal international transactions. U.S. firms may face slightly less exchange-rate risk in international transactions, but that
benefit should not be overstated since the dollar floats against the currencies of most of our largest trading partners. The safe haven
aspect of thedollar is actually a negative for U.S. firms, since it implies that they become less
competitive (the dollar is stronger) at precisely the times that global economic conditions are most
difficult. Overall, the fact that English is the common language of international business and
politics is of considerably more benefit to the United States than is the global role of the dollar.
The exorbitant privilege is not so exorbitant any more.

US dollar hegemony hurts US companies

Tully 16 (Shawn Tully - specializes in banking, federal budget and spending issues, and health
care. Tully holds a B.A. in English from Princeton University, an M.B.A. from the University of
Chicago, and a master’s in Applied Economics from the Universite Catholique de Louvain in
Belgium, “How a Spike in the Value of the Dollar Is Hurting the U.S. Economy”,
https://fortune.com/2016/07/20/value-us-dollar-economy/)
The world’s largest companies took a major step back over the past year. Cumulative sales of the Global
500—Fortune’s annual list of the biggest companies on the planet ranked by revenue, in dollars, for the previous fiscal year—
declined for the first time since 2010. And not by a token amount either. Total revenue shrank from $31.2
trillion in fiscal 2014 to $27.6 trillion in 2015, or a fall of 11.5%. Profits dropped by 11.2%, to
$1.48 trillion. There are plenty of reasons for the reversal. A slowdown in China’s once-booming economy has affected
companies worldwide. Growth in the U.S. and Europe remains modest at best. And sustained low oil prices have erased billions in
sales for giant petroleum producers like Exxon Mobil (XOM), Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A), and Sinopec. But one
macroeconomic
trend looms largest of all: the explosive comeback of the U.S. dollar and the wide-ranging
impact of its renewed strength on global trade.

US dollar hegemony weakens companies

Tully 16 (Shawn Tully - specializes in banking, federal budget and spending issues, and health
care. Tully holds a B.A. in English from Princeton University, an M.B.A. from the University of
Chicago, and a master’s in Applied Economics from the Universite Catholique de Louvain in
Belgium, “How a Spike in the Value of the Dollar Is Hurting the U.S. Economy”,
https://fortune.com/2016/07/20/value-us-dollar-economy/)
Why does a strong dollar mean lower sales for the Global 500? The reason is twofold. First, exports for U.S. corporations

—the largest group on the list, with a total of 134 companies—weakened because the surging
dollar meant that their prices were higher in foreign markets. Second, sales outside the U.S.—
whether by U.S. or non-U.S. multi-nationals— in foreign currencies such as euros, yen, and yuan
translated into far fewer dollars than they did last year. For instance, 1 billion euros in sales added up to $1.3 billion in 2014 and
just $1.1 billion in 2015. Part of this is technical, of course, driven by the fact that the Global 500 is calculated in dollars. To determine rankings, we use an average of exchange
rates over the previous year to convert, say, Toshiba’s sales from yen into dollars. Incredibly, no fewer than 19 of the 21 currencies represented on the list retreated against the
dollar in 2015. The euro fell 16.4% vs. the dollar, the yen slid 8.4%, and the yuan dipped 2%. Emerging-market currencies took the biggest hits—notably the Brazilian real (–
29.4%) and the Russian ruble (–36.9%). The best measure of how U.S. multi-nationals fared against foreign competitors is to strip out the conversion effect and compare revenue
growth in home currencies. Overall, Asian companies performed the best last year, lifting their average sales in yen, rupees, and the like by 11%, vs. a 5.8% gain after conversion
to dollars. China was an exception, however: Though the yuan fell slightly against the dollar, it appreciated strongly vs. most of the world’s currencies, pummeling exports of
Chinese companies. European companies on average had flat sales in their local currencies. But many that did large volume in the U.S. performed brilliantly, as they got a boost
from being able to produce their goods in euros or pounds and sell them in dollars.
 L/T - Stocks
Dollar collapse will cause stocks to rise
John 1/28/19 Ciaran John is a business and law student. "Do Stocks Rise When The Dollar Falls?"
https://finance.zacks.com/stocks-rise-dollar-falls-9961.html
The market value of the U.S. dollar has an impact on every segment of the economy,
including the stock market. A strong dollar is synonymous with falling equity prices,
while a weaker dollar can cause stock prices to rise. However, the relationship between currency valuations
and the stock market is complex. A weak dollar is not necessarily good news for investors. The relationship between the value of the
US dollar and the stock market is far from direct. That being said, a cheaper dollar can strengthen exports which, in turn, can boost
domestic profits and share value. This is just one example of the impact of value adjustments to the US dollar. Before 1973, the
Bretton Woods international monetary system determined the value of the U.S. dollar. In 1973, the federal government decided to
float the dollar; the currency's value is now based on supply and demand. Commodities including gold and oil are priced in dollars.
Foreign investors buy dollars to make transactions involving dollar denominated goods easier to facilitate. For the same reason, U.S.
companies and investors buy euros, pesos and other currencies. Many foreign investors view the dollar as a safe haven investment and
buy U.S. currency when other nations experience economic problems. Conversely, investors often sell dollars when the U.S. economy
goes into a downturn. If the dollar drops in value, the price of goods denominated in dollars increases. Consequently, stocks in energy
companies may rise as the dollar weakens. Imports become more expensive after a dollar devaluation, but foreign companies can
acquire American goods at lower prices. This helps to drive up exports. As exports increase, profits rise and stocks in U.S. companies
rise in value. Investors attempting to profit from rising stock prices may shift their cash from bonds to stocks. The increased
competition for stocks drives prices up even further. So-called day traders are sensitive to current economic trends. These investors
help to drive up stock prices when the dollar weakens. However, other investors take a longer-term view and analyze the underlying
factors that have caused the dollar to fall in value. Issues such as excessive levels of government debt may raise red flags and suggest
that the U.S. economy is headed into a downturn. Consequently, investors may shy away from stocks and move their money into safer
investments, such as bonds. This action could cause the stock market rally to dissipate. On the other hand, if the long-term economic
forecast looks good, investors may snap up stocks with the expectation that they can make gains as the economy stabilizes. The U.S.
funds attempt to
stock market includes a variety of funds that trade currencies and assets denominated in dollars. Some
capitalize on a strong dollar by investing in oil, gold and U.S. currency. Other funds take a
contrarian view and bet against the dollar by investing in currencies from other nations . When the dollar drops in
value, funds containing foreign currency and assets rise in value. The gains in these
securities are offset by losses in funds tied to the dollar.
AT Heg
 Trumpers
American hegemony is already dead and will continue – empirics and Trump
Schindler 17 - John R. Schindler, a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst
and counterintelligence officer, 17 ("The Year American Hegemony Ended", Observer, 12-31-
2017, Available Online from http://observer.com/2017/12/president-trump-inherited-a-
hegemon-in-decline-inflicted-more-damage///dvb
The United States has been the world’s greatest power since 1945 , when that mantle—half-
passed from London to Washington after the First World War—firmly landed in American hands
after the Second World War. Since 1991, when the Cold War ended with Soviet collapse, America has been the world’s
hegemon, to use the proper term, the force whose power could not be seriously challenged on the global stage.
For 26 years now—a happy generation—America has been able to do whatever it wanted, to anyone, at any time of our choosing,
anywhere on earth. Notwithstanding the decline of major sectors of the American economy, our military has covered the globe with
deployments as the Pentagon has divided our planet into “geographic combatant commands” to formalize our hegemony. Our
allegedly deep defense thinkers have hailed this as our viceroys enacting Washington’s benevolent imperial will anywhere we desire.
It needs to be said that plenty of the planet has been happy to acquiesce in American hegemony. While we’re hardly the pure-
hearted hegemon we imagine ourselves to be, the United States appears like a relatively positive force on the global stage,
compared to other options. Even among skeptics regarding America’s global dominance, few pine instead for hegemony under, say,
Beijing and its Communist party bosses.
Nevertheless, 2017 gave unmistakable signs that American hegemony, which has been waning for a
decade, has now ended. A new age has dawned, even though it’s still early and the sun is far from full. As commander-in-
chief, in his first year in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump has ranted and raved on Twitter almost
daily, with no effect save to confuse our allies about what exactly is going on in Washington. De
facto, America has two foreign and defense policies: what the president says and what our national security bureaucracy does. The
gap between presidential rhetoric, much of it unhinged, and actual policy toward the world
grew throughout 2017.
It’s no wonder, then, that North Korea seems anything but cowed, despite a year of Trumpian rants at Pyongyang. The Kim dynasty
keeps rattling its nuclear saber at will, firing off missiles over the Pacific to showcase its power, and Washington’s demands that they
cease have had no impact. While the Trump administration propagates the fantasy that North Korea will never become a nuclear
power, that troublesome country has plainly had atomic weapons for years. That this unreality-based policy might end badly for
everyone—even a merely conventional war on the Korean peninsula will mean millions of refugees and casualties—is obvious and
constitutes one of the major what-ifs for the coming year.
The National Security Strategy recently rolled out by the White House with fanfare, however, appreciates none of these new
geopolitical realities. It imagines a world where American power, while now confronted by Russia and a rising China, remains above
fundamental challenge. Predictably, the president’s release of “his” NSS had barely any connection to the actual document. To be
fair to Trump, the NSS always is a political write-up, not really any kind of strategy, and the relationship between its wish-list and
actual Beltway policy is often tenuous; the current administration has decided to sever any NSS connection to reality altogether.
It should be noted that President Trump
inherited a hegemon in decline. His predecessors did plenty of
damage before the current Oval Office occupant decided to inflict more. Bill Clinton’s well-
intentioned if often mishandled humanitarian interventions in the Balkans gave the illusion that
America knew how to “nation build” broken societies at modest cost in lives and treasure.
We did not, as is demonstrated by the multi-decade debacles in the Greater Middle East initiated by George W. Bush in the
aftermath of 9/11. In overreaction to jihadist terrorism, Washington decided to recreate that troubled region by, in effect, handing a
broken Iraq to the mullahs in Tehran. The magical transformative powers of the U.S. military on foreign societies turned out to be as
much a fantasy as the Bush experiment with mortgage loans for everyone. In a similar vein, the less said about our never-ending war
in Afghanistan—which amounts to an effort to coercively make that country what it has never been, politically and socially—perhaps
the better.
The loss of American prestige associated with the Iraqi and Afghan debacles is difficult to
overstate. Plenty of the world was content to go along with American hegemony so long as it
was somewhat competent. No fair-minded strategist, surveying what the Bush administration did in the Muslim
heartland, could look at Washington’s defense and foreign policy elites, the architects of grand
failures, with any comfort.
Not that Barack Obama made things better. Although he entered the White House with a mandate
to undo the damage wrought by his predecessor, he mostly failed to do so. It’s difficult to not have
sympathy for President Obama, who when he realized the extent of the Iraq horror he inherited, wanted to abandon the biggest
failure in America’s history abroad. It’s less easy to excuse Obama’s missteps in Afghanistan , where a half-
hearted “surge” failed to change any facts on the ground that really mattered.
Still, Obama’s biggest failures came elsewhere. His willingness
to participate in the overthrow of the Gadhafi
regime in Libya on dubious humanitarian grounds birthed violence and crisis graver than existed
there in the first place. Worse, taking out the former rogue Gadhafi after he had abandoned his weapons of mass
destruction and was cooperating with America’s war on terrorism, sent an indelible message that Washington’s word is no good—so
never, ever give up your WMDs. Pyongyang, among others, watched and learned.
Then there’s Obama’s mishandling of Russia , with fateful consequences. His abandonment of his own “red line” in
Syria in 2013 was easily read as a grave strategic error, since Obama in effect outsourced U.S. policy in the Middle East to Moscow—
the results of which are painfully clear today. Obama’s
reticence to do much about Vladimir Putin’s
aggression in Ukraine a few months later is a matter of record, while his strange unwillingness to
confront the Kremlin over its rancid spy-propaganda offensive against the West in 2015
undoubtedly encouraged aggressive Russian interference in America’s election the following
year.
Putin and other malefactors got the message that Obama’s America would not stand up to troublemakers who could push back.
Diffident messaging is never good for the hegemon’s reputation, especially when it’s already blighted due to incompetence and
imperial overstretch. In 2017, in stark contrast, Donald Trump led the country in the opposite direction, with unceasing bluster
about American strength and willingness to go it alone, anytime Washington wants to, damn the consequences.
Trump’s screw the-world style in foreign affairs was on display this month with the White House’s decision to recognize
Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. This pleased the Israeli right-wing and major donors to President
Trump, yet in no way enhanced American power or prestige: quite the opposite. Reaction from
the Muslim world was predictably furious, while the Trump administration made everything
worse at the United Nations. There, Nikki Haley, our ambassador, publicly threatened members who didn’t vote with
Washington against a UN resolution condemning our embassy move. This was American diplomacy at its most heavy-handed and
tone-deaf, and it failed dismally. Virtually the whole world voted against Trump, with even most of NATO siding against Washington.
This was a major diplomatic defeat for the alleged global hegemon.
President Trump is all about “strength” and he loves to tweet about our military, his own draft-dodging notwithstanding. In a sense,
Trump is a perfect fit for our era, when all America has left is raw military power. Our economy has been in decline for decades, our
divided society displays unmissable rot, and our politics are a partisan shamble in the aftermath of 2016. What America has left is its
military, which is the ultimate underpinning of hegemony.
However, just how much military overmatch the Pentagon has left, after a near-generation of
down-punching in the Middle East against fourth-rate foes without strategic success, is now
America’s great imponderable. We have spent trillions of dollars on Iraq, Afghanistan, and
killing jihadists all over, and the price in military obsolescence and declining morale is evident to
anyone who wants to see.
Our Air Force, which hasn’t faced a serious peer competitor in the skies since the middle of the Second World War, is shedding pilots
at an alarming rate, while it has far too few F-22 fighters to maintain air dominance worldwide, which Washington has taken as a
given for decades. However, our
Navy is in even worse shape, with a staggering number of admirals
under a cloud for participation in an appalling corruption-cum-espionage scandal, while our fleet
in 2017 demonstrated that it has lost grip on basic navigation at sea, with fatal results. Considering
the U.S. Navy has been the guarantor of freedom of navigation on the world’s seas since 1945, the protector of international trade
and the backbone of American hegemony, its sad decline has far-reaching consequences.
That said, our Army is equally unready for battle against a peer. In its shadow war in eastern Ukraine, Russia’s
ground forces have demonstrated killing capabilities far beyond what America and NATO can do. The combination of Russian long-
range artillery and electronic warfare has obliterated whole Ukrainian battalions, and right now they would do the same to the U.S.
Army. Grave underinvestment in field artillery and electronic warfare hangs over our army. Russia has excelled at artillery for
centuries, and that arm is the great killer on the modern battlefield. Armies that go into battle outgunned by the Russians historically
get blasted off the field with heavy casualties. Right now, the U.S. Army is frantically playing catch-up so it can take on the Russians
as equals if it comes to a fight.
Our army’s opening performance has often been subpar, as demonstrated by defeats like Kasserine Pass and Task Force Smith.
However, America always had time on our side to turn it around. We may not if the battlefield is in the Baltics, which the Russians
may overrun in a couple days, before the U.S. Army has a chance to stop the invader. These are the scenarios that keep Pentagon
planners up at night as we enter the new year.
Above all, Trump’s go-it-alone attitude is precisely the wrong take as American hegemony disappears . Some empires decline slowly,
others fall fast after a major defeat; history is filled with both outcomes. Since 1945, Washington has presumed that it can deploy
our military anywhere, at the time and place of our choosing, thanks to our dominance of the world’s skies and oceans. Even in a
worst case, we could always get our forces home. This should no longer be assumed. The world has changed, American
hegemony has collapsed , and if it’s not careful Washington may find out the hard way. Let’s hope cooler and wiser heads
prevail in 2018.

Hegemony is collapsing now due to Trump– economic contradictions, tensions

with NATO, and cultural contradictions prove its terminally unsustainable.
Ahmed 16 – Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is an investigative journalist who works for the
Institute for Policy Research and Development (IPRD). “US Power Will Decline Under Trump,
Says Futurist Who Predicted Soviet Collapse” Published: December 6, 2016. Accessed 7/12/18.
(https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d7ykxx/us-power-will-decline-under-trump-says-
futurist-who-predicted-soviet-collapse///dvb)
Johan Galtung, a Nobel Peace Prize-nominated sociologist who predicted the collapse of the
Soviet Union, warned that US global power will collapse under the Donald Trump
administration. The Norwegian professor at the University of Hawaii and Transcend Peace University is recognized as the
'founding father' of peace and conflict studies as a scientific discipline. He has made numerous accurate predictions
of major world events, most notably the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Back in 2000, Galtung
first set out his prediction that the "US empire" would collapse within 25 years. Galtung has also
accurately predicted the 1978 Iranian revolution; the Tiananmen Square uprising of 1989 in
China; the economic crises of 1987, 2008 and 2011; and even the 9/11 attacks—among other
events, according to the late Dietrich Fischer, academic director of the European University
Center for Peace Studies. Back in 2000, Galtung first set out his prediction that the "US empire" would collapse within 25
years. After the election of President Bush, though, he revised that forecast five years forward because, he argued, Bush's policies of
extreme militarism would be an accelerant. After the election of Trump, I thought it might be prudent to
check in with Galtung to see how he was feeling about the status of his US forecast. Galtung told
Motherboard that Trump would probably continue this trajectory of accelerated decline—and
may even make it happen quicker. Of course, with typical scientific caution, he said he would prefer to see what
Trump's actual policies are before voicing a clear verdict. The model Galtung has doctoral degrees in both
sociology and mathematics, and some decades ago developed a theory of "synchronizing and
mutually reinforcing contradictions", which he used to make his forecasts . The model was
based on comparing the rise and fall of 10 historical empires . In 1980, Galtung used his theoretical model
to map the interaction of various social contradictions inside the Soviet empire, leading him to predict its demise within 10 years.
"Very few believed him at the time", writes Dietrich Fischer in the main biography and anthology of Galtung's works, Pioneer for
Peace, "but it occurred on November 9, 1989, two months before his time limit, 1990." For
the USSR, Galtung's model
identified five key structural contradictions in Soviet society which, he said, would inevitably
lead to its fragmentation—unless the USSR underwent a complete transformation. The model
works like this: the more those contradictions deepen, the greater the likelihood they will result
in a social crisis that could upend the existing order. In the case of the USSR, the main structural
contradictions were as follows: the working class was increasingly repressed and unable to self-
organise through trade unions (ironic given the country's Communist pretensions); the wealthier
'bourgeoisie' or elite had money to spend, but nothing to buy from domestic production, leading
to economic stagnation; Russian intellectuals wanted more freedom of expression; minorities
wanted more autonomy; and peasants wanted more freedom of movement The model works like this:
the more those contradictions deepen, the greater the likelihood they will result in a social crisis that could upend the existing order.
Eventually, as the highly centralised structures of the Soviet empire were unable to accommodate these intensifying pressures, the
top-down structures would have to collapse. Galtung later began to apply his model to the United States. In
1996, he wrote a
scientific paper published by George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis &
Resolution warning that "the USA will soon go the same way as [previous] imperial
constructions… decline and fall." Fascism? But the main book setting out Galtung's fascinating
forecast for the US is his 2009 book, The Fall of the American Empire—and then What? The
book sets out a whopping 15 "synchronizing and mutually reinforcing contradictions" afflicting
the US, which he says will lead to US global power ending by 2020—within just four years. Galtung
warned that during this phase of decline, the US was likely to go through a phase of reactionary "fascism". He argued that
American fascism would come from a capacity for tremendous global violence; a vision of
American exceptionalism as the "fittest nation"; a belief in a coming final war between good and
evil; a cult of the strong state leading the fight of good against evil; and a cult of the "strong
leader". Galtung warned that during this phase of decline, the US was likely to go through a phase of reactionary "fascism". All of
which, Galtung said, surfaced during the Bush era, and which now appear to have come to fruition through Trump. Such fascism, he
told Motherboard, is a symptom of the decline—lashing out in disbelief at the loss of power. Among
the 15 structural
contradictions his model identifies as driving the decline, are: economic contradictions such as
'overproduction relative to demand', unemployment and the increasing costs of climate
change; military contradictions including rising tensions between the US, NATO, and its
military allies, along with the increasing economic unsustainability of war; political
contradictions including the conflicting roles of the US, UN and EU; cultural contradictions
including tensions between US Judeo-Christianity, Islam, and other minorities; and social
contradictions encompassing the increasing gulf between the so-called 'American Dream', the
belief that everyone can prosper in America through hard work, and the reality of American life
(the fact that more and more people can't). Galtung's book explores how the structural inability to resolve such
contradictions will lead to the unravelling of US political power, both globally, and potentially even domestically. Global collapse
Trump has made clear that he thinks US troops are still needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even proposed sending more troops to
Iraq. He also said that we should have 'grabbed' the country's oil. But he has also heavily (and incoherently) criticized US military
policies. Domestically,
Trump has promised to deport 11 million illegal migrants, build a wall
between the US and Mexico, compel all American Muslims to sign up to a government register,
and ban all Muslim immigration to the US. On the one hand, Trump might well offer an
opportunity to avoid potential conflicts with great power rivals like Russia and China—on the
other, he may still, stupidly, fight more unilateral wars and worsen domestic contradictions
relating to minorities. For Galtung, Trump's incoherent policy proposals are evidence of the
deeper structural decline of US power: "He [Trump] blunts contradictions with Russia, possibly
with China, and seems to do also with North Korea. But he sharpens contradictions inside the
USA", such as in relation to minority rights. On the one hand, Galtung said, Trump might well
offer an opportunity to avoid potential conflicts with great power rivals like Russia and China—
on the other, he may still, stupidly, fight more unilateral wars and worsen domestic
contradictions relating to minorities. Motherboard asked Galtung whether he thinks Trump
would speed up his forecast of "collapse", or slow it down . Even if we give Trump the benefit of the doubt, he
said, and assume that he "prefers solving underlying conflicts, particularly with Russia, to war—in other words for the US not be
imperial—then yes, that still speeds up the decline from above, and from the center… Of course, what he does as a President
remains to be seen." But
what exactly is collapsing? "An empire is more than violence around the
world," said Galtung. "It is a cross-border structure with a center, the imperial country, and a
periphery, the client countries. The point about imperialism is to make the elites in the
periphery do the jobs for the center." The center country may be a dictatorship or a democracy.
So for Galtung, the collapse of the US empire comes "when the periphery elites no longer want to fight US wars, no longer want to
exploit for the center." For
Galtung, a key sign of collapse would be Trump's attitude to NATO. The
President-elect has said he would be happy to see NATO break-up if US allies aren't willing to
pay their dues. Trump's 'go it alone' approach would, Galtung said, accelerate and undermine US global
empire at the same time. "The collapse has two faces," said Galtung. "Other countries refuse to
be 'good allies: and the USA has to do the killing themselves, by bombing from high altitudes,
drones steered by computer from an office, Special Forces killing all over the place. Both are
happening today, except for Northern Europe, which supports these wars, for now. That will
probably not continue beyond 2020, so I stand by that deadline." US break-up? But this global
collapse, also has potential domestic implications.

Trump undermines hegemony- poor management style, pull outs of NATO,

weakening military legitimacy prove transition is inevitable- Fill-in ignites
peaceful regional diplomacy that spurs multilateralism-clinging to hegemony
creates a violent transition and spurs international crises.
Hurlburt 17--(Heather Hurlburt, The World Without America, Daily Intelligencer, 6-6-2017 accessed 4-9-2018,
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/the-world-without-america.html)
It’s time to stop asking  whether  the
Trump administration believes in U.S. global leadership as we’ve
known it since World War II. The answer is clear now.  It doesn’t. It’s also time to stop hoping that the officials around
Trump can prop up international institutions as fast as he assaults them. Cabinet secretaries and career diplomats may be soothing
Americans, but they aren’t fooling foreigners. No, President Trump and his enablers are ushering us into a
new, post-American stage of global relations, at the speed of Twitter . Increasingly,  Washington is
viewed by other nations a problem to be managed rather than a leader to be sought .  World
 leaders are  building new relationships – and jockeying for the space we’ve left behind – as fast as they  can,  while the
U.S. trashes its relations and fights over the last election at home.  On security, politics, and economics, no
one is waiting for the grown-ups, the midterms, or Vice-President Pence. Consider  our closest ally, the United Kingdom. The country
has suffered two grievous terror attacks in the last two weeks.  Its sitting prime minister is one of few world leaders with whom the
Trump White House enjoyed cordial relations — so much so that the White House floated the idea of a Trump visit after the most
recent London attacks. The British government was having none of it though. Trump
and his team had  both
undercut Prime Minister May’s short-term political prospects and  run over some of the  two
countries’  most basic shared interests.  When  Trump raced to Twitter to exploit the London attacks for domestic
political points even before basic facts were clear — including  twisting the words of the popular (and Muslim) mayor of London —
he demonstrated why the ruling Conservative Party thinks of him as a loose cannon whose presence might send British voters into
the arms of the Labour Party when the country votes on Thursday. There’s  also  the awkward matter of Nigel  Farage, the former
head of the right-wing U.K. Independence Party, who’s been named as a “person of interest” in the FBI’s investigation of Trump–
Russia 2016 campaign contacts.   U.K.
conservatives are quietly picking up former UKIP voters — and
don’t need the embarrassment of the connection being spotlighted. Suddenly America is that
kind of country though — an ally to keep at a wary, and often awkward, distance . Hanging over the
whole election is the stark new reality that the next British government will have to contend with. Washington  broke  confidentiality
agreements and  enraged  U.K. law  enforcement with leaks after the Manchester attacks.  And Trump’s  refusal to reaffirm NATO’s
core principle — an attack on one is an attack on all — leaves the U.K. badly exposed between a Europe it has left and a U.S. it can no
longer count on. Other key European allies have also started treating us in ways that would have been unthinkable until last year.
The  French and German publics  are so angry at Trump  that leaders  are mocking him to rile
up their supporters. French president Emmanuel Macron and his government are trolling the U.S.  daily  in (English-
language) social media ahead of France’s parliamentary election — in which his party has surged to an unexpectedly strong lead in
polling.  German premier  Angela Merkel, who once looked to be in trouble  in German elections this
fall, is riding high as she soberly tells the German public that the days they could depend on
others outside Europe are over. Campaign  insults may be forgotten, but the  follow-up  actions to build relationships
and institutions that don’t depend on Washington — and downgrade those that do — will be harder to reverse.  American
businesses want U.S.-EU agreements that harmonize environmental and health regulations,
which saves them money — but after Trump left the popular Paris accord those will be harder
to come by. The general chill in relations is likely to mean a decline in European support for
any potential U.S. military actions. That means more deployments for American service
members, and more of the bill footed by American taxpayers. It may also mean less European
willingness to host and help pay for the U.S. military bases that support Middle East
operations. In the long term, the perception that Europe’s interests are different are likely to
lead toward exactly the opposite of Trump’s call for Europe to spend more money on NATO.
Instead, we may see moves toward security institutions based on the EU — where the U.S. is
out of the loop — instead of NATO. Outside Europe, countries that we are used to thinking of
as partners — and perhaps junior partners — are stepping up to fill space the U.S. is vacating.
China  has amped up its rhetoric about being a global climate leader  — rolling out  a new
partnership with the European Union and lecturing about “international responsibility” to
manage global warming, in tones we’re more used to hearing from Washington, not directed at it. You can’t open a foreign-policy
journal without finding an article on “One Belt One Road,” China’s regional economic plan which it is touting as a vehicle for foreign
investment and integration — a stirring contrast to the U.S. pullout from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (even if there is less to “One
Belt” than meets the eye). And as Beijing offers diplomatic and economic carrots, it has kept up its shows of force in maritime
territories it disputes with U.S. partners and allies. China is building its own leadership on its own terms, thank you
very much. So is India. President Trump had scarcely left Europe when Indian prime minister Modi arrived for a four-country tour,
including trade talks and pledges to strengthen the global order with Germany and — on the heels of Trump’s Paris climate-deal
pullout — work together on the environment with France’s Macron. At the same time, Indian defense officials were at a regional
meeting pledging assistance to Vietnam’s military. Memories of Indian reluctance to commit on climate, and its discomfort at
Washington’s role supporting Vietnam and other Southeast Asian powers, were fading fast — as fast as any expectation that
Washington would take the lead again soon, on either front.

China and Russia are trying to gain primacy and Trump has left the gate right
open
Cohen 17
Eliot A. Cohen is a contributing editor at The Atlantic and dean of The Johns Hopkins University
School of Advanced International Studies. From 2007 to 2009, he was the Counselor of the
Department of State.  OCTOBER 2017/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/is-trump-ending-the-american
era/537888///dvb
American foreign policy was, if not in crisis, in big trouble. Strong forces were putting stress on the old global political order: the

rise of China to a power with more than half the productive capacity of the United States (and defense spending to match); the

partial recovery of a resentful Russia under a skilled and thuggish autocrat; the discrediting of Western elites by the
financial crash of 2008, followed by roiling populist waves, of which Trump himself was part; a turbulent Middle East; economic
dislocations worldwide.
An American leadership that had partly discredited itself over the past generation compounded these problems. The
Bush administration’s war against jihadist Islam had been undermined by reports of mistreatment and torture; its Afghan campaign
had been inconclusive; its invasion of Iraq had been deeply compromised by what turned out to be a false premise and three years of
initial mismanagement.
These circumstances would have caused severe headaches for a competent and sophisticated successor. Instead, the United
States got a president who had unnervingly promised a wall on the southern border (paid for by

Mexico), the dismantlement of long -standing trade deals with both competitors and partners, a closer
relationship with Vladimir Putin, and a ban on Muslims coming into the United States.

Trump is the root cause of the erosion of US hegemony resulting in

multipolarity
Street 18
Paul Street is a leading author, social critic and political commentator, his work appearing
weekly in CounterPunch and Truthdig.  USA POLITICS  MARCH 1, 2018/
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/the-world-will-not-mourn-the-decline-of-u.s.-
hegemony///dvb
There are good reasons for any good progressive to bemoan the presence of the childish, racist, sexist and ecocidal ,

right-wing plutocrat Donald Trump in the White House. One complaint about Trump that should be held at arm’s-length by

anyone on the left, however, is the charge that Trump is contributing to the decline of U.S. global power —to the
erosion of the United States’ superpower status and the emergence of a more multipolar world.
This criticism of Trump comes from different elite corners. Last October, the leading neoconservative foreign policy intellectual and
former George W. Bush administration adviser Eliot Cohen wrote an Atlantic magazine essay titled “How Trump Is Ending
the American Era. ” Cohen recounted numerous ways in which Trump had reduced “America’s standing and ability to
influence global affairs.” He worried that Trump’s presidency would leave “America’s position in the world stunted” and

an “America lacking confidence” on the global stage.

I recently reviewed a manuscript on the rise of Trump written by a left-liberal American sociologist. Near the end of this forthcoming
and mostly excellent and instructive volume, the author finds it “worrisome” that other nations see the U.S. “abdicating its role as
the world’s leading policeman” under Trump—and that, “given what we have seen so far from the [Trump] administration, U.S.
heg emony appears to be on shakier ground than it has been in a long time.”

For the purposes of this report, I’ll leave aside the matter of whether Trump is, in fact , speeding the decline of
U.S. global power (he undoubtedly is) and how he’s doing that to focus instead on a very different question: What would be
so awful about the end of “the American Era”—the seven-plus decades of U.S. global economic and related military supremacy
between 1945 and the present? Why should the world mourn the “premature” end of the “American Century”?
 Thumper -- U.S. Interventionism
Americas intervention is an independent hegemony thumper
Katehon 16
Katehon think tank is an independent organization consisting of an international network of
people - from a wide variety of fields and disciplines - who specialize in the geopolitical,
geostrategic and political analysis of world events. The group consists of political thinkers,
international relations (IR) researchers, experts in security and counter-terrorism, and
journalists concerned with international affairs, geopolitics, ethno-politics and inter-religious
dialogue. 22.07.2016 katehon.com/directives/dugins-guideline-american-hegemony-dragon-
wounded///dvb
What is the US doing today and what is its place in the modern world? This is not an idle question. We can see that the
Americans and their global networks are still making themselves felt and continuing to interfere in the internal
affairs of their allies, neutral countries, and even in their enemies’ countries.
Literally just a few days ago, they tried to carry out a military coup in Turkey and provoke unrest in Armenia and Kazakhstan.
However, it is becoming increasingly evident that they are much weaker than before. Washington tried to prevent Brexit, but failed.
The Gulenist mutiny in Turkey also ended in failure . So, can we unequivocally state that the unipolar world
has finished and that we live in a new, post-American world?
 Unsustainable
Heg collapse inevitable – alt causes
Switzer 16 (Tom Switzer, Former editor of the Spectator Australia, opinion editor of The
Australian, editorial writer at the Australian Financial Review and assistant editor at the
American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, Former senior fellow at the United States
Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. 21 June 2016. “Why Donald Trump Should Embrace
Offshore Balancing” http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-donald-trump-should-
embrace-offshore-balancing-16661)
Great sea changes of foreign policy thought are rare in American public life. But there’s abundant evidence
that the US is experiencing one now . Polls show that the American people are tired of the world, with a
majority believing that it’s high time for the nation to concentrate on its own neglected internal
problems. The defense budget has fallen and will continue to fall, and there’s a strong aversion to seeing US soldiers killed
and wounded. To the extent that such views prevail, they’re inimical to the post-Cold War consensus that the US should impose its will and leadership across the globe. Enter
Donald Trump, whose divisive rhetoric and rude-and-crude behavior shouldn’t disguise the fact that he has caught the significance of the new mood. Like Bernie Sanders,

Trump found a receptive primary campaign audience whenever he questioned America’s propensity for promoting
democracy and subsidizing allies’ defenses. And, unlike Hillary Clinton, he recognizes that US military
interventions in the Middle East all too often make a bad situation worse, getting America bogged down in sectarian wars while
radicalizing a new generation of jihadist. If a foreign policy keeps hurting US interests and making the world a far more dangerous place, then some new thinking is in order.
Unfortunately, Trump’s failed to match his shrewd instincts with any policy substance. He could do worse than consult an important article in the latest Foreign Affairs magazine.
John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt from Harvard University are two of America’s most distinguished scholars of international relations. Neither
will vote for Trump or work for his administration if he’s elected in November. Nonetheless, they agree with Trump in his rejection of idealistic crusades. As the US interventions

in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have shown, there’s not an American solution to every problem . In fact, there are a good
many problems, for which there may be no solution at all . They also agree that “free riders”—allies whose security
relies overwhelmingly on US largesse— are a consequence of the post-Cold War strategy of global liberal

hegemony. Mearsheimer and Walt instead propose a policy of offshore balancing, which concentrates on preserving US
hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and preventing the rise of hegemonic powers in Europe,
Asia and the Persian Gulf. In deciding when to deploy military power, they argue, the US should allow problems to be
handed to those closest to the problem . This way, a sense of responsibility and initiative can be
developed throughout the international system and the US can reserve its own intervention for
the great issues, acting as a balancer of last resort rather than what Madeleine Albright called an ‘indispensable nation’. In practice, that
means that the US should get out of Europe and turn NATO over to the Europeans, as Trump himself

suggests. Russia, after all, is a declining power, whose actions in the Baltics are more reactive to western policy (NATO
expansion, for instance) than aggressive. In the Persian Gulf, the US should aim to prevent Iran, the only

rising power in the region, from becoming a hegemon via a limited rapprochement. (Egypt, Syria, Israel
aren’t vital strategic interests.) Meanwhile, acting as a balancer of last resort in the Middle East would ameliorate

America’s terrorism problem. Why? Because such a policy respects the sovereignty of other states and doesn’t trigger
nationalist anger at the US, which is one of the main driving forces behind jihadism . Asia’s different. The rise
of China, Mearsheimer and Walt suggest, is bound to threaten the regional equilibrium, so US military force will be needed in the region more than ever. That’s especially so,

None of this means abandoning America’s

given that US allies are unable or unwilling to balance Beijing’s hegemonic ambitions on their own.

position as the world’s greatest power or retreating to a form of isolationism . It means that although the US can
afford to scale back somewhat and force other states to bear a fairer share of global burdens, Washington will need to remain the balancer

of last resort in those strategically important regions. By being more discriminating, selective and prudent, a
policy of offshore balancing will prevent rivals from dominating key regions of the world and
preserve US primacy over the long haul. Trump should embrace the Mearsheimer–Walt thesis, which would be manna from heaven.

American power is collapsing – dollar hegemony can’t prevent this

Shea 5/28 (Rainer Shea, a political jounalist for multiple companies, uses the
written word to construct establishment propaganda to promomte meaningful
political actions. 28 May 2019. "It May Not Be Fully Visible, But We’re in the Final
Years of the American Empire"https://ghionjournal.com/it-may-not-be-fully-
visible-but-were-in-the-final-years-of-the-american-empire/)
The United States has reached a point where its entire claim to global hegemony
is based on a series of increasingly fragile geopolitical alliances, and on a
worldwide military presence that can’t be sustained for much longer . As the political
writer Dmitry Orlov said in an interview last month: “I think that the American empire is very much over
already, but it hasn’t been put to any sort of serious stress test yet, and so nobody realizes that this is the
case.” The last few years of military budget expansions, war campaigns against Iran and Venezuela, and attempts to strong-arm
Russia and China are all part of the American empire’s reaction to this fragility. So is the fact that the United States has, with the
“War on Terror”, been at war for the last 18 years. Throughout this time, the American empire has been in a state similar to that of
the British empire after it attacked Egypt in 1956, or to that of the Athenian empire during the Peloponnesian War of 431–404 B.C.
When these empires launched their great military adventures, each experienced a rapid decline in their ability to maintain the
power structures they’d created, and soon they were no longer dominant. The same has been happening to the U.S. since the start
Endless wars and military expansions
of its disastrous invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.
have drained the U.S. economy while the Great Recession and increasing income
inequality have further impeded the country’s ability to function economically.
The U.S. has lost most of its ability to persuade formerly loyal countries to serve
its foreign policy goals; the Trump administration’s push for war with Iran is getting support only from Saudi Arabia and
Israel, with the international community overwhelmingly rejecting Trump’s Iran agenda. Overall, the hand that
America plays during its regime change attempts is now decrepit and increasingly
ineffectual; the U.S. has ended up isolating itself on the world stage by engineering Juan Guaido’s
illegal coup attempt in Venezuela, with 75% of the world’s countries backing current president Maduro. And in a world that’s
Russia and China have lately been outmaneuvering the U.S.
become multipolar,
economically and militarily. Their recent rapid moves to protect Venezuela from a U.S. invasion are but one
example. The U.S. still can still do great damage through sanctions—as it’s doing right now in Syria and Venezuela—and its military
But without strong international support or an economy that
remains the largest in the world.
works properly, the country is only retaining its power through violence and
military buildup. This knee-jerk reliance on hard power has made U.S. an international outlaw whose government is widely
hated and distrusted, both at home and abroad. Mass revolt against it could easily break out in the coming years, as working class
discontent reaches a boiling point. None of this is hyperbole. In 2017, a Pentagon report stated that American power “is
not merely fraying but may, in fact, be collapsing.” The report even recommended that the
government try to maintain its control through propaganda, increased surveillance, and more military expansionism, which it has.

Heg unsustainable – they don’t solve – political polarization, not economic

slowdown or international challengers
Tozzo 18 - Lecturer at Trent University, Canada, where he teaches methodology, US politics
and International Relations (Brandon Tozzo; “American Hegemony after the Great Recession”;
pgs. 3-4///dvb
Secondly, and most critically, this book will intervene in a debate on the future of American hegemony. The response of the
USA to the crisis has developed a contradiction : the main threat to American hegemony is not from
the global capitalist system, nor from foreign competitors, but its political system. Since the Second World War, the USA has
been the hegemon of the international capitalist system-promoting free trade, market liberalism and a central player in many
Polarization is common in American politics . The American public is divided
international institutions.
on a wide array of social and economic issues: whether the state should promote school prayer,
women's access to abortion, the role of government in health care and same-sex marriage.
While each of these issues is significant in their own right, they have not had global ramifications. Since the onset of the Great
Recession conflict has expanded into areas that were previously non-politicized or where there
was cross-party consensus. With an increasingly ideologically divided Congress, the rise of the
Tea Party, and the success of Donald Trump in 2016, Americans are now seriously debating
whether the USA should remain committed to global free trade and open markets , and whether
America should continue to maintain its role in institutions like NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization). However, despite
the politics, the USA currently has low unemployment, decreasing budget deficits and a
booming stock market. Compared to other countries, the USA has come out the Great Recession in a stronger position than
its major contenders. My analysis is not that America lacks the economic resources or policy tools to
manage contradictions in capitalism or international crisis, but, the crisis has shown the American political

system is becoming increasingly unwilling due to politics . To put the overall thesis of this book succinctly,
the greatest threat to American hegemony and the stability of global capitalism in the twenty-first century is
America. I will also provide an analysis of the major challengers on an international stage to American
hegemony in order to show that they suffer from significant institutional, political and economic
problems. In Europe, the institutional framework of the EU and the Euro has constrained both wealthier northern countries and
the economically weak south. While the economic crisis in Southern European countries is abated through loans, along with
austerity measures, politically, there is little popular will to increase the political unity of Europe. On the contrary, years of recession,
a migration crisis from the Middle East and the rise of right-wing nationalist parties have made many Europeans far more sceptical of
"Project Europe". The Recession has shown the fissures within the European Union, along geographic lines. In 2016, Britain voted for
a "Brexit" from the European Union, and while the details have yet to be worked out, this is a worrying sign for future integration in
Europe. It continues to be unlikely Europe will be able to seriously contend with the USA as a unified global superpower in the near
future.
 Impact D - No Impact
No impact to heg- US intervention, military spending and activism have no
influence on levels of peace- their evidence is psychologically biased
Fettweis 5-8-17
(Christopher J.-assistant professor of political science at Tulane University. “Unipolarity,
Hegemony, and the New Peace” Published in Security Studies Vol 26 No 3.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09636412.2017.1306394?
src=recsys&journalCode=fsst20)
Even the most ardent supporters of the hegemonic-stability explanation do not contend that US
influence extends equally to all corners of the globe The United States has concentrated its .

policing in strong points,” or the most important parts of the world: Western
what George Kennan used to call “

Europe, the Pacific Rim, and Persian Gulf .64 By doing so, Washington may well have contributed more to great power peace than the overall global decline in warfare. If the former phenomenon
contributed to the latter, by essentially providing a behavioral model for weaker states to emulate, then perhaps this lends some support to the hegemonic-stability case.65 During the Cold War, the United States played referee to a few intra-West squabbles,

Other, equally plausible explanations exist for stability

especially between Greece and Turkey, and provided Hobbesian reassurance to Germany’s nervous neighbors.

in the first world, including the presence of a common enemy, democracy, economic
interdependence, general war aversion, etc . The looming presence of the leviathan is certainly among these plausible explanations, but only inside the US sphere of influence. Bipolarity was
bad for the nonaligned world, where Soviet and Western intervention routinely exacerbated local conflicts. Unipolarity has generally been much better, but whether or not this was due to US action is again unclear. Overall US interest in the affairs of the Global

There is less US intervention in the political and military

South has dropped markedly since the end of the Cold War, as has the level of violence in almost all regions.

affairs of Latin America compared to any time in the twentieth century, for instance, and also
less conflict Warfare in Africa is at an all-time low, as is relative US interest outside of
.

counterterrorism and security assistanc Regional peace and stability exist where there is US e.66

active intervention, as well as where there is not. No direct relationship seems to exist across
regions . If intervention can be considered a function of direct and indirect activity, of both political and military action, a regional picture might look like what is outlined in Table 1. These assessments of conflict are by necessity relative, because there

The great powers of the

has not been a “high” level of conflict in any region outside the Middle East during the period of the New Peace. Putting aside for the moment that important caveat, some points become clear.

world are clustered in the upper right quadrant, where US intervention has been high, but
conflict levels low. US intervention is imperfectly correlated with stability , however. Indeed, it is conceivable that the

relatively high level of US interest and activity has made the security situation in the Persian
Gulf and broader Middle East worse substantial hard power investments Somalia, . In recent years, (

Afghanistan, Iraq), moderate intervention (Libya), and reliance on diplomacy (Syria) have been
equally ineffective in stabilizing states torn by conflict . While it is possible that the region is essentially unpacifiable and no amount of police work would bring peace to its

it remains hard to make the case that the US presence has improved matters. In this “strong
people,

point,” at least, US hegemony has failed to bring peace. In much of the rest of the world, the United States has not been especially eager to enforce any particular

intervention choices have at best been erratic

rules. Even rather incontrovertible evidence of genocide has not been enough to inspire action. Washington’s ; Libya and Kosovo brought

The US record of peacemaking is not exactly a long

about action, but much more blood flowed uninterrupted in Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Sri Lanka, and Syria.

uninterrupted string of successes . During the turn-of-the-century conventional war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, a highlevel US delegation containing former and future National Security Advisors (Anthony
Lake and Susan Rice) made a half-dozen trips to the region, but was unable to prevent either the outbreak or recurrence of the conflict. Lake and his team shuttled back and forth between the capitals with some frequency, and President Clinton made repeated
phone calls to the leaders of the respective countries, offering to hold peace talks in the United States, all to no avail.67 The war ended in late 2000 when Ethiopia essentially won, and it controls the disputed territory to this day. The Horn of Africa is hardly the only

Stability exists
region where states are free to fight one another today without fear of serious US involvement. Since they are choosing not to do so with increasing frequency, something else is probably affecting their calculations.

even in those places where the potential for intervention by the sheriff is minimal. Hegemonic
stability can only take credit for influencing those decisions that would have ended in war
without the presence, whether physical or psychological, of the United States It seems hard to .

make the case that the relative peace that has descended on so many regions is primarily due
to the kind of heavy hand of the neoconservative leviathan, Something else or its lighter, more liberal cousin.

appears to be at work. Conflict and US Military Spending How does one measure polarity? Power is traditionally considered to be some combination of military and economic strength, but despite scores of efforts, no widely

. Perhaps overall military spending might be thought of as a proxy for hard power
accepted formula exists

capabilities perhaps too the amount of money the United States devotes to hard power is a
;

reflection of the strength of the unipole there is no obvious correlation, and . When compared to conflict levels, however,

certainly not the kind of negative relationship between US spending and conflict that many
hegemonic stability theorists would expect to see During the 1990s, the United States cut back .

on defense by about 25 percent spending $100 billion less in real terms in 1998 that it did in
,

1990 No serious analyst of American

.68 To those believers in the neoconservative version of hegemonic stability, this irresponsible “peace dividend” endangered both national and global security. “

military capabilities doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet
America’s responsibilities to itself and to world peace, The world grew ” argued Kristol and Kagan at the time.69

dramatically more peaceful while the United States cut its forces and stayed just as , however,

peaceful while spending rebounded after the 9/11 terrorist attacks . The incidence and
magnitude of global conflict declined while the military budget was cut under President
Clinton, in other words and kept declining , Overall US (though more slowly, since levels were already low) as the Bush administration ramped it back up.

military spending has varied during the period of the New Peace from a low in constant dollars
of less than $400 billion to a high of more than $700 billion, but war does not seem to have
noticed The same nonrelationship exists between other potential proxy measurements for
.

hegemony and conflict there does not seem to be much connection between warfare and
:

fluctuations in US GDP, alliance commitments, and forward military presence There was very .

little fighting in Europe when there were 300,000 US troops stationed there, for example, and
that has not changed as the number of Americans dwindled by 90 percent. there does not Overall,

seem to be much correlation between US actions and systemic stability Nothing the United .

States actually does seems to matter to the New Peace . It is possible that absolute military spending might not be as important to explain the phenomenon as relative.
Although Washington cut back on spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. The United States has accounted for between 35 and 41 percent of global military spending every year since the collapse of the Soviet Union.70 The perception of

perhaps it is
relative US power might be the decisive factor in decisions made in other capitals. One cannot rule out the possibility that it is the perception of US power—and its willingness to use it—that keeps the peace. In other words,

the grand strategy of the United States, rather than its absolute capability, that is decisive in
maintaining stability. It is that to which we now turn . Conflict and US Grand Strategy The perception of US power, and the strength of its hegemony, is to some degree a

If indeed US strategic choices are responsible for the New Peace, then variation in
function of grand strategy.

those choices ought to have consequences for the level of international conflict A restrained .

United States is much less likely to play the role of sheriff than one following a more activist
approach . Were the unipole to follow such a path, hegemonic-stability theorists warn, disaster would follow. Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski spoke for many when he warned that “outright chaos” could be expected to follow a
loss of hegemony, including a string of quite specific issues, including new or renewed attempts to build regional empires (by China, Turkey, Russia, and Brazil) and the collapse of the US relationship with Mexico, as emboldened nationalists south of the border
reassert 150-year-old territorial claims. Overall, without US dominance, today’s relatively peaceful world would turn “violent and bloodthirsty.” 71 Niall Ferguson foresees a post-hegemonic “Dark Age” in which “plunderers and pirates” target the big coastal cities
like New York and Rotterdam, terrorists attack cruise liners and aircraft carriers alike, and the “wretchedly poor citizens” of Latin America are unable to resist the Protestantism brought to them by US evangelicals. Following the multiple (regional, fortunately) nuclear
wars and plagues, the few remaining airlines would be forced to suspend service to all but the very richest cities.72 These are somewhat extreme versions of a central assumption of all hegemonic-stability theorists: a restrained United States would be accompanied
by utter disaster. The “present danger” of which Kristol, Kagan, and their fellow travelers warn is that the United States “will shrink its responsibilities and—in a fit of absentmindedness, or parsimony, or indifference— allow the international order that it created and
sustains to collapse.” 73 Liberals fear restraint as well, and also warn that a militarized version of primacy would be counterproductive in the long run. Although they believe that the rule-based order established by United States is more durable than the relatively
fragile order discussed by the neoconservatives, liberals argue that Washington can undermine its creation over time through thoughtless unilateral actions that violate those rules. Many predicted that the invasion of Iraq and its general contempt for international

Thus while all

institutions and law would call the legitimacy of the order into question. G. John Ikenberry worried that Bush’s “geostrategic wrecking ball” would lead to a more hostile, divided, and dangerous world.74

hegemonicstability theorists expect a rise of chaos during a restrained presidency, liberals also
have grave concerns regarding primacy then maintaining that . Overall, if either version is correct and global stability is provided by US hegemony,

stability through a grand strategy based on either primacy (to neoconservatives) or “deep
engagement” (to liberals) is clearly a wise choice .75 If, however, US actions are only tangentially related to the outbreak of the New Peace, or if any of the other proposed

The grand strategy of the United States is therefore crucial

explanations are decisive, then the United States can retrench without fear of negative consequences.

to beliefs in hegemonic stability post-Cold War grand strategies

Although few observers would agree on the details, most would probably acknowledge that

of American presidents have differed in some important ways . The four administrations are reasonable representations of the four ideal types outlined by

Bush followed selective engagement

Barry R. Posen and Andrew L. Ross in 1996.76 Under George H. W. , the United States the path of “ ,” which is sometimes referred to as “balance-of-power realism”; Bill

Clinton’s looks like

grand strategy cooperative security,” and others call “liberal
a great deal what Posen and Ross call “

internationalism Bush forged a strategy that was as close to “primacy” as any

”; George W. , especially in his first term,

president is likely to get Obama followed a restrained realist path, which

; and Barack , despite some early flirtation with liberalism, has

Posen and Ross label “neo-isolationism” but its proponents refer to as “strategic restraint 77 In .”

no case did the various anticipated disorders materialize . armed conflict levels fell As Table 2 demonstrates,

steadily, irrespective of the grand strategic path Washington chose. Neither the primacy of
George W. Bush nor the restraint of Barack Obama had much effect on the level of global
violence the world has not experienced an increase in violence while the
. Despite continued warnings (and the high-profile mess in Syria),

United States chose uninvolvement . If the grand strategy of the United States is responsible for the New Peace, it is leaving no trace in the evidence. Perhaps we should not expect a correlation to show
up in this kind of analysis. While US behavior might have varied in the margins during this period, nether its relative advantage over its nearest rivals nor its commitments waivered in any important way. However, it is surely worth noting that if trends opposite to
those discussed in the previous two sections had unfolded, if other states had reacted differently to fluctuations in either US military spending or grand strategy, then surely hegemonic stability theorists would argue that their expectations had been fulfilled.

Many liberals were on the lookout for chaos while George W. Bush was in the White House, just
as neoconservatives have been quick to identify apparent worldwide catastrophe under
President Obama If increases in violence would have been evidence for the wisdom of
.78

hegemonic strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should at least
pose a problem the only evidence we have regarding the relationship between US power
. As it stands,

and international stability suggests that the two are unrelated. The rest of the world appears
quite capable and willing to operate effectively without the presence of a global policeman .

Those who think otherwise have precious little empirical support upon which to build their case.
Hegemonic stability is a belief, in other words, rather than an established fact, and as such deserves a different kind of examination. The Political Psychology of Unipolarity Evidence supporting the notion that US power is primarily responsible for the New Peace is

Political psychology
slim, but belief in the connection is quite strong, especially in policy circles. The best arena to examine the proposition is therefore not the world of measurable rationality, but rather that of the human mind.

can shed more light on unipolarity than can any collection of data or evidence Just because an .

outcome is primarily psychological does not mean that it is less real perception quickly becomes ;

reality Beliefs have deep

for both the unipolar state and those in the periphery. If all actors believe that the United States provides security and stability for the system, then behavior can be affected.

explanatory power in international politics whether they have a firm foundation in empirical
reality or not. Like all beliefs, faith in the stability provided by hegemony is rarely subjected to much analysis.79 Although they almost always have some basis in reality, beliefs need not pass rigorous tests to prove that they match it. No
amount of evidence has been able to convince some people that vaccines do not cause autism, for example, or that the world is more peaceful than at any time before, or that the climate is changing due to human activity. Ultimately, as Robert Jervis explains, “we

When leaders are motivated to act based on

often believe as much in the face of evidence as because of it.” 80 Facts may change, but beliefs remain the same.

unjustified, inaccurate beliefs, folly often follows . The person who decides to take a big risk because of astrological advice in the morning’s horoscope can benefit from baseless
superstition if the risk pays off. Probability and luck suggest that successful policy choices can sometimes flow from incorrect beliefs. Far more often, however, poor intellectual foundations lead to suboptimal or even disastrous outcomes. It is worthwhile to analyze
the foundations of even our most deeply held beliefs to determine which ones are good candidates to inspire poor policy choices in those who hold them. People are wonderful rationalizers. There is much to be said for being the strongest country in the world; their
status provides Americans both security and psychological rewards, as well as strong incentives to construct a rationale for preserving the unipolar moment that goes beyond mere selfishness. Since people enjoy being “number one,” they are susceptible to

It is no coincidence that most hegemonic stability theorists are

perceiving reality in ways that brings the data in line with their desires.

American .81 Perhaps the satisfaction that comes with being the unipolar power has inspired Americans to misperceive the positive role that their status plays in the world. Three findings from political psychology can shed light on perceptions of

They are mutually supportive, and, when taken together, suggest that it is likely that US
hegemonic stability.

policymakers overestimate the extent to which their actions are responsible for the choices of
others. The belief in the major US contribution to world peace is probably unjustified. The Illusion of Control Could 5 percent of the world’s population hope to enforce rules upon the rest? Would even an internationally hegemonic United States be

believers in hegemonic stability may be affected by the very

capable of producing the New Peace? Perhaps, but it also may be true that

common tendency of people to overestimate their ability to control events. A variety of evidence has accumulated over the past forty

the “illusion of control” that routinely distorts perception Even in

years to support Ellen J. Langer’s original observations about .82

situations where outcomes are clearly generated by pure chance, people tend to believe that
they can exert control over even ts.83 There is little reason to believe that leaders are somehow less susceptible to such illusions than subjects in controlled experiments. The extensive research on the illusion

misperceptions of control appear to be correlated with

of control has revealed two further findings that suggest US illusions might be even stronger than average. First,

power Powerful people tend to be

: individuals with higher socioeconomic status, as well as those who are members of dominant groups, are more likely to overestimate their ability to control events.84

far more confident than others, often overly so, and that confidence leads them to inflate their
own importance. Leaders of superpowers are thus particularly vulnerable to distorted
85

perceptions regarding their ability to affect the course of events. US observers had a greater
structural predisposition to believe that they would have been able to control events
than others, for example,

eople from societies

in the Persian Gulf following an injection of creative instability in 2003. The skepticism of less powerful allies was easily discounted. Second, there is reason to believe that culture matters as well as power. P

that value individualism are more likely to harbor illusions of control than those from collectivist
societies, where assumptions of group agency are more common . When compared to people from other parts of the world, Westerners tend to view

Those who come from relatively powerful

the world as “highly subject to personal control,” in the words of Richard Nisbett.86 North Americans appear particularly vulnerable in this regard.87

countries with individualistic societies are therefore at high risk for misperceiving their ability to
influence events . For the United States, the illusion of control extends beyond the water’s edge. An oft-discussed public good supposedly conferred by US hegemony is order in those parts of the world uncontrolled by sovereign states, or
the “global commons.” 88 One such common area is the sea, where the United States maintains the only true blue-water navy in the world. That the United States has brought this peace to the high seas is a central belief of hegemonic-stability theorists, one rarely
examined in any serious way. Indeed the maritime environment has been unusually peaceful for decades; the biggest naval battles since Okinawa took place during the Falklands conflict in 1982, and they were fairly minor.89 If hegemony is the key variable

It is equally if not more plausible to suggest, however, that

explaining stability at sea, maritime security would have to be far more chaotic without the US Navy.

the reason other states are not building blue-water navies is not because the United States
dissuades them from doing so but rather because none feels that trade is imperiled .90 In earlier times, and certainly

Today the free flow of goods is vital to

during the age of mercantilism, zero-sum economics inspired efforts to cut off the trade of opponents on occasion, making control the sea extremely important.

all economies, and it would be in the interest of no state to interrupt it .91 Free trade at sea may no longer need protection, in other words,

the sheriff may be patrolling a crime-free neighborhood.

because it essentially has no enemies; The threat from the few remaining pirates hardly requires a robust
naval presence, and is certainly not what hegemonic-stability advocates mean when they compare the role played by the US Navy in 2016 to that of the Royal Navy in 1816. It is at least possible that shared interest in open, free commons keeps the peace at sea
rather than the United States. Oceans unpatrolled by the US Navy may be about as stable as they are with the presence of its carriers. The degree to which 273 active-duty ships exert control over vast common parts is not at all clear. People overestimate the degree

to which they control events in their lives. Furthermore, if these observations from political psychology are right about the factors that influence the growth of illusions of power, then US leaders and analysts are
particularly susceptible to misperception They may well be overestimating the degree to which .

the United States can affect the behavior of others . The rest of the world may be able to get along just fine, on land and at sea, without US attempts to control it. Ego-Centric

t is natural for people, whether presidents or commoners, to misperceive the role

and Self-Serving Biases in Attribution I

they play in the thinking process of others. Jervis was the first to discuss this phenomenon, now
known as the “ego-centric bias,” which has been put to the test many times since he wrote four
decades ago . Building on what was known as “attribution theory,” Jervis observed that actors tend to overestimate their importance in the decisions of others. Rarely are our actions as consequential upon their behavior as we believe them to

This is not merely ego gratification, though that plays a role; actors are simply more conscious
be.92

of their own actions than the other factors central to the internal deliberations in other capitals .

Two further aspects of the ego-centric bias

Because people are more likely to remember their contributions to an outcome, they naturally grant themselves more causal weight.93

make US analysts even more susceptible to its effects. First, the bias is magnified when the
behavior of others is desirable This “self-serving bias” is one
. People generally take credit for positive outcomes and deflect responsibility for negative ones.

of the best-established findings in modern psychology, supported by many hundreds of

studies.94 Supporters of Ronald Reagan are happy to give him credit for ending the Cold War, for instance, even though evidence that the United States had much influence on Premier Gorbachev’s decision making is scant at best.95 Today, since

that perceptions of the New Peace are prime candidates for

few outcomes are more desirable than global stability, it stands to reason

distortion by ego-centric, self-serving biases. When war breaks out, it is not the fault of US
leaders; when peace comes to a region, Washington is happy to take credit . There was for some time a debate among psychologists

Extensive research has essentially settled the matter,

over just how universal self-serving biases were, or whether their effects varied across cultures. to the extent that

a direct relationship appears to exist between cultural individualism and

academic questions can ever be settled:

susceptibility to the bias, perhaps because of the value individualistic societies place on self-
enhancement (as opposed to self-effacement).96 Actors from more collectivist societies tend to have their egos rewarded in different ways, such as through contributions to the community and connections to others. People from Western
countries are far more likely to take credit for positive outcomes than those from Eastern, in other words, and subjects in the United States tower over the rest of the West. US leaders are therefore more culturally predisposed to believe that their actions are

Second, self-perception is directly related to egocentric attributions. Individuals

responsible for positive outcomes like peace.

with high self-esteem are more likely to believe that they are at the center of the decision-
making process of others than those who think somewhat more modestly .97 Leaders of any unipolar state may well be more likely to
hold their country in high regard, and therefore are more vulnerable to exaggerated egocentric perceptions, than their contemporaries in smaller states. It might not occur to the lead diplomat of other counties to claim, as did Madeleine Albright, that “if we have to

It is not unreasonable to suspect that the

use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future.” 98

US security community may be even more vulnerable to this misperception than the average
group of people . For example, many in that community believed that the United States played a decisive role in Vladimir Putin’s decisions regarding Crimea and eastern Ukraine. President Obama’s various critics argued that perceptions of
American weakness inspired or even invited Russian aggression. The refusal to act in Syria in particular emboldened Moscow (despite the fact that in 2008, in the face of ample displays of US action in the Middle East, Moscow had proven sufficiently bold to invade
Georgia). Other critics suggested that a variety of provocative US behaviors since the end of the Cold War, especially the expansion of NATO and dissolution of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, poisoned US–Russian relations and led to an increase in Kremlin paranoia

Egocentric misperceptions are so ubiquitous and

and eventually to the invasion.99 So, either through provocative weakness or bullying, we were responsible for their actions.

pervasive that they generate something of a law of political psychology: we are probably less
influential in others’ decision making than we think we are . This extends to their decisions to resolve contentious issues peacefully. While it may be natural for US

Washington exaggerates its importance in the decision

policymakers to interpret their role as crucial in the maintenance of world peace, it is very likely that

making of others, and in the maintenance of international stability. The effect of the ego-centric bias may be especially difficult for the unipolar

they are still probably less

United States to resist, because other countries do regularly take Washington’s position into account before acting. But US leaders—and the people who analyze them—should keep in mind that

important to calculations made in other capitals than they believe . They may well be especially unlikely to recognize the possibility that hegemony is
epiphenomenal, that it exists alongside, but does not affect, global stability and the New Peace. Overestimated Benevolence After three years in the White House, Ronald Reagan had learned something surprising: “Many people at the top of the Soviet hierarchy
were genuinely afraid of America and Americans,” he wrote in his autobiography. He continued: “Perhaps this shouldn’t have surprised me, but it did … I’d always felt that from our deeds it must be clear to anyone that Americans were a moral people who starting at
the birth of our nation had always used our power only as a force for good in the world…. During my first years in Washington, I think many of us took it for granted that the Russians, like ourselves, considered it unthinkable that the United States would launch a first

While it is common for actors to attribute negative

strike against them.” 100 Reagan is certainly not alone in believing in the essential benevolent image of his nation.

motivations to the behavior of others, it is exceedingly difficult for them to accept that anyone
could interpret their actions in negative ways . Leaders are well aware of their own motives and tend to assume that their peaceful intentions are obvious and transparent. Both strains of

Hegemonic stability depends on the perceptions of

the hegemonic-stability explanation assume not only that US power is benevolent, but that others perceive it that way.

other states to be successful ; it has no hope to succeed if it encounters resistance from the less powerful members of the system, or even if they simply refuse to follow the rules. Relatively small police forces require

They must perceive the sheriff as just, rational, and essentially

the general cooperation of large communities to have any chance of establishing order.

nonthreatening. The lack of balancing behavior in the system, which has been puzzling to many realists, seems to support the notion of widespread perceptions of benevolent hegemony.101 Were they threatened by the order
constructed by the United States, the argument goes, smaller states would react in ways that reflected their fears. Since internal and external balancing accompanied previous attempts to achieve hegemony, the absence of such behavior today suggests that
something is different about the US version. Hegemonic-stability theorists purport to understand the perceptions of others, at times better than those others understand themselves. Complain as they may at times, other countries know that the United States is
acting in the common interest. Objections to unipolarity, though widespread, are not “very seriously intended,” wrote Kagan, since “the truth about America’s dominant role in the world is known to most observers. And the truth is that the benevolent hegemony
exercised by the United States is good for a vast portion of the world’s population.” 102 In the 1990s, Russian protests regarding NATO expansion—though nearly universal—were not taken seriously, since US planners believed the alliance’s benevolent intentions
were apparent to all. Sagacious Russians understood that expansion would actually be beneficial, since it would bring stability to their western border.103 President Clinton and Secretary of State Warren Christopher were caught off guard by the hostility of their
counterparts regarding the issue at a summit in Budapest in December 1994.104 Despite warnings from the vast majority of academic and policy experts about the likely Russian reaction and overall wisdom of expansion itself, the administration failed to anticipate

The Russians did not seem to believe American assurances that expansion would
Moscow’s position.105

actually be good for them. The United States overestimated the degree to which others saw it
as benevolent Once again, the culture of the United States might make its leaders more
.
vulnerable to this misperception . The need for positive self-regard appears to be particularly strong in North American societies compared to elsewhere.106 Western egos tend to be gratified through self-

The need to be
promotion rather than humility, and independence rather than interdependence. Americans are more likely to feel good if they are unique rather than a good cog in society’s wheel, and uniquely good.

perceived as benevolent, though universal, may well exert stronger encouragement for US
observers to project their perceptions onto others. The United States almost certainly frightens
others more than its leaders perceive A quarter of the 68,000 respondents to a 2013 Gallup poll .

in sixty-five countries identified the United States as the “greatest threat to world peace ,” which was

The international community always has to worry about the

more than three times the total for the second-place country (Pakistan).107

potential for police brutality, even if it occurs rarely. Such ungratefulness tends to come as a surprise to US leaders. In 2003, Condoleezza Rice was dismayed to discover resistance to US initiatives in Iraq:

Both liberals and neoconservatives

“There were times,” she said later, “that it appeared that American power was seen to be more dangerous than, perhaps, Saddam Hussein.” 108

probably exaggerate the extent to which US hegemony is everywhere secretly welcomed it is ; not just

disagreement with US policies, that motivates counterhegemonic beliefs and

petulant resentment, but understandable

behavior. To review, assuming for a moment that US leaders are subject to the same forces that affect every human being, they overestimate the amount of control they have over other actors, and are not as important to decisions made elsewhere
as they believe themselves to be. And they probably perceive their own benevolence to be much greater than do others. These common phenomena all influence US beliefs in the same direction, and may well increase the apparent explanatory power of hegemony

United States is probably not as central to the New Peace as either liberals or
beyond what the facts would otherwise support. The

neoconservatives believe. In the end, what can be said about the relationship between US power and international stability? Probably not much that will satisfy partisans, and the pacifying virtue of US hegemony will
remain largely an article of faith in some circles in the policy world. Like most beliefs, it will remain immune to alteration by logic and evidence. Beliefs rarely change, so debates rarely end. For those not yet fully converted, however, perhaps it will be significant that

corroborating evidence for the relationship is extremely hard to identify . If indeed hegemonic stability exists, it does so without leaving

Neither Washington’s spending, nor its interventions, nor its overall grand strategy
much of a trace.

seem to matter much to the levels of armed conflict around the world The (apart from those wars that Uncle Sam starts).

empirical record does not contain strong reasons to believe that unipolarity and the New Peace
are related political psychology suggest that hegemonic stability is a belief particularly
, and insights from

susceptible to misperception. US leaders probably exaggerate the degree to which their power matters, and could retrench without much risk to themselves or the world around them. Researchers will need to

Peace will probably persist for quite some

look elsewhere to explain why the world has entered into the most peaceful period in its history. The good news from this is that the New

time, no matter how dominant the United States or what policies President Trump follows, or is,

how much resentment its actions cause in the periphery . The people of the twenty-first century are likely to be much safer and more secure than any of their
predecessors, even if many of them do not always believe it.
 Heg Bad - Generic
Hegemony risks moral hazards, causes all their war scenarios
Posen 2013 - Ford International Prof of Political Science and Director of the Security Studies @
MIT
Barry R, "The Case for a Less Activist Foreign Policy," 92 Foreign Aff. 116
U.S. security guarantees also encourage plucky allies to challenge more powerful states,
confident that Washington will save them in the end-a classic case of moral hazard. This phenomenon
has caused the United States to incur political costs, antagonizing powers great and small for no
gain and encouraging them to seek opportunities to provoke the U nited States in return. So far, the
United States has escaped getting sucked into unnecessary wars, although Washington
dodged a bullet in Taiwan when the Democratic Progressive Party of Chen Shui-bian governed the island, from 2000 to
2008. His frequent allusions to independence, which ran counter to U.S. policy but which some Bush administration officials
reportedly encouraged, unnecessarily provoked the Chinese government; had he proceeded, he would have surely triggered a
dangerous crisis. Chen would never have entertained such reckless rhetoric absent the long-standing backing of the U.S.
government.
The Philippines and Vietnam (the latter of which has no formal defense treaty with Washington) also seem to
have figured out that they can needle China over maritime boundary disputes and then seek
shelter under the U.S. umbrella when China inevitably reacts. Not only do these disputes make it
harder for Washington to cooperate with Beijing on issues of global importance; they also risk
roping the United States into conflicts over strategically marginal territory
. Georgia is another state that has played this game to the United States'
detriment. Overly confident of Washington's affection for it, the tiny republic deliberately
challenged Russia over control of the disputed region of South Ossetia in August 2008. Regardless of
how exactly the fighting began, Georgia acted far too adventurously given its size, proximity to Russia, and distance from any
plausible source of military help. This needless war ironically made Russia look tough and the United States unreliable.
This dynamic is at play in the Middle East, too. Although U.S. officials have communicated time and again to leaders
in Jerusalem their discomfort with Israeli settlements on the territory occupied during the 1967 war, Israel regularly
increases the population and dimensions of those settlements . The United States' military
largess and regular affirmations of support for Israel have convinced Israeli hawks that they
will suffer no consequences for ignoring U.S. advice. It takes two to make peace in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, but the creation of humiliating facts on the ground will not bring a negotiated settlement any closer. And Israel's policies
toward the Palestinians are a serious impediment to improved U.S. relations with the Arab world.
 Heg Bad - M.E. Interventionism
An increase of hegemony legitimizes the US to engage in middle eastern
countries – this causes a laundry list of impacts
Shepp 18 [Jonah Shepp 7-1-2018 Intelligencer While Condemning Iran, the U.S. Contributes to
Terrorism in the Middle East, Too http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/iran-us-contribute-
terrorism-middle-east.html Accessed 11-28-2018]
The Trump administration’s concern over Iran’s support for terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East is entirely legitimate.
Iran projects regional power through a variety of non-state proxies: Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Hamas in Gaza, various Shi’ite
militias in Iraq, and Yemen’s Houthi rebels. All of these organizations have engaged in terrorist activity, while the Syrian regime of
Bashar al-Assad, an Iranian client, has committed countless atrocities over more than eight years of civil war there. Yet the
United States has little in the way of moral high ground from which to berate Iran for
supporting terrorism and destabilizing fragile states in its backyard. Over the past few
decades, the U.S. has often found itself doing the same thing in the course of projecting
our own power and defending the hegemony of our problematic allies in the Middle East.
The latest example of this comes from Yemen, where an Associated Press investigation published Monday
found that the U.S.-backed military coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates has on numerous occasions paid off members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula (AQAP) to abandon their strongholds or even to join up with coalition forces. While
ostensibly at war with both AQAP and the Iran-backed Houthi rebels, the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia see the latter as the more pressing
threat by far. Accordingly, the AP found, local
militias supported by the coalition frequently recruit
seasoned Al Qaeda fighters into their ranks to fight the Houthis, in deals allegedly
brokered by Emirati agents and greased with Saudi money. The U.S. does not directly
fund the coalition, and the investigation found no evidence of American money making
its way to AQAP militants. Nonetheless, the U.S. has supported the coalition with
billions of dollars in weaponry, while providing intelligence and air support, chiefly in
the form of drone strikes. Money is fungible, and every dollar the U.S. spends on
weapons for the coalition is a dollar Saudi Arabia or the U.A.E. saves to spend on bribing
or recruiting AQAP jihadists. When our drones hold off on bombing AQAP convoys
while the coalition grants them safe passage into their mountain hideaways, we are still
complicit in a dirty deal. This doesn’t make us any worse than Iran, but it underscores the reality that in messy wars over
failed states, nobody comes out with clean hands. Not one participant in the humanitarian catastrophe that is the Yemeni civil war has
in mind the best interests of Yemen as a country or the Yemeni people. As the regional powers play their grand strategy game and
attempt to muscle the country into their respective spheres of influence, everyone on the ground is just scrambling to survive and to
expand their piece of a very small pie. The attitude of local militia commanders was described to the AP thusly: “We
will unite
with the devil in the face of Houthis.” In this context, the notion that we could intervene
in Yemen and not end up doing business with people who ought to be our enemies is
almost ridiculous. The same is true of Syria, where the U.S. has consistently had a hell of
a time sorting out the “good” rebel factions we can conscientiously support from the
jihadists we’d rather not. Despite our best efforts to only arm the good guys, some of the
weapons we dumped into Syria inevitably fell into the hands of radical terror groups,
including ISIS. In Iraq, too, militias once supported by Iran have become partners of the U.S. in our efforts to help that country
beat back ISIS and restore some vestige of stability. Alliances with paramilitary groups were also a key component of the U.S.
counterinsurgency operations during the most violent years of our occupation of Iraq. Needless to say, that occupation was itself
among the most destabilizing events to befall the Middle East in its modern history and has led to tens of thousands of deaths from
terrorism. It’s
hard for the U.S. to credibly condemn Iran for supporting terrorism when
every time we involve ourselves in a Middle Eastern conflict, we find ourselves
contributing — directly or indirectly, wittingly or unwittingly — to instability, violence,
and yes, terrorism. The means of our foreign policy in the Middle East are at odds with
its supposed ends. Our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, our attempts to tip the scales of
the conflicts in Libya and Syria, and our intervention in Yemen have only exacerbated
the region’s ills. Our close relationship with Saudi Arabia, which easily rivals Iran as an
inspiration, sponsor, and financier of terrorism, is a big part of the problem. By
supporting Saudi hegemony in the greater Middle East, we have abetted the proliferation
of a radical Islamist ideology no less toxic than that of the Iranian mullahs. Moreover, by
keeping Iran in a constant state of threat, we justify its leaders’ paranoia and motivate
them to counter the Saudis with weapons proliferation and terrorist activities of their own
 Heg Bad - Prolif
Heg causes prolif but decline prevents it
Friedman et al. 13
Benjamin Friedman is the William Joseph Maier Professor of Political Economy and former Chair
of the Department of Economics @ Harvard, Brendan R. Green is a Professor of Political Science
@ Williams College, Justin Logan is the director of foreign policy studies @ the Cato Institute,
International Studies, Vol. 38, No. 2, Fall 2013, pp. 181-199, “Correspondence: Debating
American Engagement: The Future of U.S. Grand Strategy,”
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/isec_c_00140.pdf#page=3
Brooks et al. warn that a variety of states would develop nuclear weapons absent ∂ U.S.
protection. We agree that a proliferation cascade would create danger and that restraint∂ may cause some new states to seek
nuclear weapons. Proliferation cascades are∂ nonetheless an unconvincing rationale for primacy.
Primacy likely causes more proliferation among adversaries than it prevents among allies.
States crosswise with the∂ United States realize that nuclear arsenals deter U.S. attack and
diminish its coercive power. U.S. protection, meanwhile, does not reliably stop allied and
friendly states from building nuclear weapons. Witness British, French, and Israeli
decisionmaking.∂ Proliferation cascades were frequently predicted but never realized during
the Cold∂ War, when security was scarcer.15 New research argues that security considerations
are∂ often a secondary factor in the proliferation of nuclear weapons , and that states with the
strongest appetites for proliferation often lack the technical and managerial capacities∂ to
acquire the bomb.16 Finally, even if proliferation cascades occur, they do not∂ threaten U.S.
security. Few, if any, states would be irrational enough to court destruction ∂ at the hands of the
U.S. nuclear arsenal, especially if the United States is not enmeshed∂ in their conflicts.
 AT Transition Wars
Hegemonic decline will be peaceful
Fettweis 2017 - Associate Professor of Political Science at Tulane University
Christopher, "Unipolarity, Hegemony, and the New Peace," Security Studies, 26:3, 423-451, DOI:
10.1080/09636412.2017.1306394
Why has armed conflict declined to historically low levels ? What accounts for the post-Cold War peace, and
how long is it likely to last? Surely no questions are more important for either the theory or practice of international relations, and
few are harder to answer. Only by understanding the causes of the New Peace can we extrapolate its likely future, however, and
plan accordingly. Of the many possible independent variables, none is more controversial than the suggestion
that hegemonic stability is at work. The possibility that the United States , wittingly or not, has
essentially established a global Pax Americana is generally overlooked by the major scholarly
works on the subject. This stands in stark contrast to the policy world, where the many positive aspects of
unipolarity and/or US hegemony are articles of faith, rarely discussed and never seriously
questioned. Scholar and public intellectual Michael Lind spoke for many when he wrote, “in my experience, most members of
the U.S. foreign policy elite sincerely believe that the alternative to perpetual U.S. world domination is chaos and war.” 4 One of
those is certainly Robert Kagan, who noted, “Pinker traces the beginning of a long-term decline in deaths from war to 1945, which
just happens to be birthdate of the American world order. The coincidence eludes him, but it need not elude us.”5
This paper examines the theoretical, empirical, and psychological foundations of that widespread belief. The first section discusses the New Peace and its potential explanations;
the second explains the difference between unipolarity and hegemony, and examines the logic of the hegemonic-stability argument; the third turns to the evidence, comparing
both US power and grand strategy to conflict levels; the fourth examines the political psychology of hegemony and reviews some major findings that provide insight into how
international order can be misperceived. Insights from that field are crucial in any discussion of the relationship between US power and global stability, which is built far more on
belief and perception than evidence.

The New Peace does not appear to be the result of unipolarity or US hegemony. While that
conclusion might not sit well with many US analysts, the news is not all bad, for if the current
generation of declinists is right and unipolarity’s days are numbered, the odds are good that
the world will not descend into the atavistic chaos that haunts the neoconservative
imagination. The United States can adjust its grand strategy without fear in the Trump years,
perhaps even letting the “unipolar moment” expire, because the New Peace may well be unrelated to its
dominance.6
AT Prolif
 No Prolif
No risk of proliferation – use of weapons has been highly exaggerated and
attacks aren’t executed
Mueller 18 (John, Adjunct Professor of Political Science and Woody Hayes Senior
Research Scientist at Ohio State University and a Senior Fellow at the Cato
Institute. He is the author of Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism From
Hiroshima to Al Qaeda, “Nuclear Weapons Don’t Matter”, Foreign Affairs, Nov-
Dec 2018, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-10-15/nuclear-weapons-dont-matter )
Since the 1940s, nuclear weapons have greatly affected defense budgets, political and military
posturing, and academic theory. Beyond that, however,  their practical significance has been vastly
exaggerated  by both critics and supporters. Nuclear weapons were not necessary to deter a third world
war. They have proved useless militarily; in fact,  their primary use has been to stoke the national
ego  or to posture against real or imaginedthreats. Few states have or want them, and they seem to
be out of reach for terrorists . Their impact on international affairs has been minor compared with the sums and
words expended on them. The costs resulting from the nuclear weapons obsessionhave been huge. To hold its own in a
snarling contest with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the United States spent $5–$10 trillion maintaining a
vast nuclear arsenal—resources that could have been used more productively on almost anything else. To head off the
imagined dangers that would result from nuclear proliferation, Washington and its allies have imposed  devastating
economic sanctions on countries such as Iraq and North Korea, and even launched a war of aggression—sorry,
“preemption”—that killed more people than  did the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The
time has long since come to acknowledge that the thinkers of the early nuclear age were mistaken in believing
that the world had been made anew . In retrospect,  they overestimated the importance of the
nuclear revolution and the delicacy of the balance of terror . This spurred generations of officials to worry
more about nuclear matters than they should have and to distort foreign and security policies in unfortunate ways. Today’s
policymakers don’t have to repeat the same mistakes, and everybody would be better off if they didn’t. Over the decades, the
atomic obsession has taken various forms, focusing on an endless array of  worst-case scenarios : bolts
from the blue, accidental wars, lost arms races, proliferation spirals, nuclear terrorism . The common
feature among all these disasters is that  none of them has ever materialized . Either we are
the luckiest people in history or the risks have been overstated.

No prolif risk due to NPT resiliency

Egeland 18 (Kjølv, DPhil in International Relations, is a fellow of the Norwegian
Academy of International Law. His research explores the evolution of the nuclear
non-proliferation and disarmament regime., “Kill the NPT Collapse Thesis”,
European Leadership Network, 7-20-
2018, https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/kill-the-npt-collapse-thesis/ )
A number of analysts have in recent months contended that the NPT process is at risk of
“crumbling” or is damaged “beyond repair”.  But the fear-mongering is unfounded. In fact, the impending doom of
the NPT has been prophesized again and again since the 1960s. However, not only is the NPT “collapse thesis”
wrong, it is  detrimental  to the goals of non-proliferation and disarmament. The narrative that the NPT
is endlessly on the verge of disintegration fuels the thinking that nuclear restraint is a painful sacrifice and implicitly calls on the NPT
community to protect the status quo rather than to push for the advancement of the Treaty’s goals. The triumph of non-
proliferation In the 1960s, several governments viewed the NPT with intense hostility. The German Cabinet Minister Franz-Josef
Strauß branded the NPT a “Versailles of cosmic dimensions”. As late as 1978, the Chinese government described the Treaty as “a
conspiracy concocted by the USSR and the U.S. to maintain their nuclear monopoly.” But over time, as the superpowers twisted
their allies’ arms and the non-proliferation norm took hold, opposition to the Treaty waned. NPT sceptics such as Algeria, Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, China, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Thailand all eventually joined. As of
today, only five UN member states are not party to the NPT . Only a single state, North Korea, has
withdrawn. Four of the NPT’s non-nuclear-weapon states parties have renounced nuclear
weapons(South Africa, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan), and many more have reversed nuclear-weapon programmes. The poverty
of the NPT collapse thesis It is striking, however, that the remarkable period of non-proliferation norm consolidation from the mid-
1960s till today has produced a ceaseless flood of expert assertions that the NPT is about to collapse. Proponents of
the
collapse thesis commonly argue that a continued reluctance  by the nuclear-weapon states to move more
decisively towards disarmament will push non-nuclear weapon states to “go nuclear” or defect
from the NPT. In other cases, collapse theorists argue that proliferation by one state  (India, North
Korea, Iran…) will lead to a chain reaction whereby numerous other states will defect from the NPT and construct their
own nuclear armouries. The collapse thesis is often invoked in support of abolition. If the alternative to disarmament is NPT collapse
and ensuing global pandemonium, so goes the argument, the nuclear-armed states might prefer to reduce and eliminate their
nuclear arsenals. But  the use of the collapse thesis as an argument for disarmament is in fact deeply
counterproductive, let alone inaccurate . Based on the assumption that a large group of non-nuclear states are
perpetually looking for reasons to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction – implicitly representing nuclear restraint as a
surrender of something positive – the collapse thesis upholds the trope that denuclearization is a struggle against nature. It supports
the argument that meaningful disarmament measures can only be pursued once “those without nuclear weapons […] feel no need
to acquire them”. One
version of the collapse thesis states that the NPT will, or could be, seriously damaged
by a failure by its parties to reach a negotiated final document at two review conferences in a row.  But the NPT has
not only survived such “failures”, it has thrived and increased its membership . In fact, the sixth NPT
Review Conference, in 2000, was the first such conference to reach consensus on a fully negotiated final document. The CTBT,
START, and New START were negotiated on the back of the “failed” conferences in 1990 and 2005.

Trump reduces the likelihood of nuclear proliferation

Muller & Pastore 17 (James, MD and cardiologist in Boston working at the
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, a major affiliate of the Harvard Medical School,
worked with the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW),
which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, John, MD and cardiologist in Boston
and a Professor of Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine,
former Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Public Health Service and a Research
Internist with the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
IPPNW’s former Executive Secretary, has focused on the moral and ethical
argument for the elimination of nuclear weapons, “Two Nobel Prize-winning
nuclear experts explain the unlikely reasons why Trump could be our savior”,
Quartz, 2-7-2017,https://qz.com/903546/donald-trump-stance-on-nuclear-weapons-remains-
unclear-but-as-two-nobel-prize-winning-nuclear-experts-argue-hes-potentially-the-best-world-
leader-to-abolish-them/)
Yet as unlikely as it may seem, Donald Trump, the very man who has reinstalled this base fear,could also  be the very

person to lead the world toward nuclear disarmament . The fact that a leader as inexperienced as Trump has
access to nuclear launch codes that could destroy whole nations instantaneously has publicly reignited the issue of nuclear
proliferation. However, the
fundamental problem is not that Trump has access to the nuclear codes—it’s that
they exist
in the first place. Getting people to sit up and recognize that there is an unacceptable level of
nuclear threat is an essential step to global nuclear disarmament; governments will not budge without public support.  If
anything, Trump’s presidency has re-alerted the world to the notion of nuclear annihilation
and led to an awakening in social activism in younger generations . Many interpreted this as a call to
expand nuclear weaponry, perhaps in response to Russian president Vladimir Putin’s statement earlier in the day that Russia needed
to “strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces.” A Trump spokesperson later said that “ strengthen” referred
to the need to work against proliferation to rogue nations . But was that truly his intention? After all, he also
supposedly remarked, “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all,” to MSNBC co-host Mika
Brzezinski when asked about the tweet. This is comment is similar to those made by president Reagan early in his presidency, before
he changed his tune toward abolition. If Trump is truly in favor of nuclear disarmament,   he may be the
best-positioned world leader in recent history to move this effort forward.  The fear he has
incited has had the unintended byproduct of increasing public awareness of this topic for the first
time in decades. Then there are his close connections with Russia: He places a high priority on improving relations with the other
country most deeply embroiled in the problem, and the selection of Rex Tillerson as secretary of state adds the strength of an
individual experienced in working with Russia. He has also met with former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who has
recommended “Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any new global equilibrium, not primarily as a threat to the
United States.” Add to this the fact that the Democrats likewise do not wish for Trump to be anywhere near “the big red button,” so
proposals he puts forward in Congress toward nuclear abolition should be met with some degree of bi-partisan support. Oddly
enough, nuclear non-proliferation might be about to have its moment.
 No Impact
There’s no impact to proliferation – alarmists are wrong
Mueller 17 (John, Professor of Political Science and Senior Research Scientist at the Mershon
Center for International Security Studies and Senior Fellow at CATO Institute, “Cato Handbook
for Policymakers – 76. Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Terrorism”, Cato Institute, 7-9-
19, https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-
policymakers/2017/2/cato-handbook-for-policymakers-8th-edition-76_0.pdf)
Except for their effects on agonies, obsessions, rhetoric, posturing, and spending, the consequences of nuclear
proliferation have been largely benign: those who have acquired the weapons have “used”
them simply to stoke their egos or to deter real or imagined threats. For the most part, nuclear powers have
found the weapons to be a notable waste of time, money, effort, and scientific talent. They have quietly kept the
weapons in storage and haven’t even found much benefit in rattling them from time to time. If the recent efforts to keep Iran
from obtaining nuclear weapons have been successful, those efforts have done Iran a favor.  There has never been a

militarily compelling reason to use nuclear weapons , particularly because it has not been possible to
identify suitable targets—or targets that couldn’t be attacked as effectively by conventional munitions. Conceivably,
conditions exist under which nuclear weapons could serve a deterrent function, but there is little reason to suspect that they have
been necessary to deter war thus far, even during the Cold War. The main Cold War contestants have never believed that a
repetition of World War II, whether embellished by nuclear weapons or not, is remotely in their interests. Moreover, the weapons
have not proved to be crucial status symbols. How much more status would Japan have if it possessed nuclear weapons? Would
anybody pay a great deal more attention to Britain or France if their arsenals held 5,000 nuclear weapons, or much less if they had
none? Did China need nuclear weapons to impress the world with its economic growth or its Olympics? Those
considerations
help explain why alarmists have been wrong for decades about the pace of nuclear proliferation .
Most famously, in the 1960s, President John Kennedy anticipated that in another decade “fifteen or twenty or twenty-five nations
may have these weapons.” Yet,  of the dozens of technologically capable countries that have considered
obtaining nuclear arsenals, very few have done so .  Insofar as most leaders of most countries (even rogue ones)
have considered acquiring the weapons, they have come to appreciate several drawbacks of doing so: nuclear weapons are
dangerous, costly, and likely to rile the neighbors. Moreover, as the University of Southern California’s Jacques Hymans has
demonstrated, the
weapons have also been exceedingly difficult for administratively dysfunctional
countries to obtain—it took decades for North Korea and Pakistan to do so. In consequence, alarmist
predictions about proliferation chains, cascades, dominoes, waves, avalanches, epidemics, and points of no return have
proved faulty. Although proliferation has so far had little consequence, that is not because the only countries to get nuclear
weapons have had rational leaders. Large, important countries that acquired the bomb were run at the time by unchallenged—
perhaps certifiably deranged—monsters. Consider Joseph Stalin, who, in 1949, was planning to change the climate of the Soviet
Union by planting a lot of trees, and Mao Zedong, who, in 1964, had just carried out a bizarre social experiment that resulted in an
artificial famine in which tens of millions of Chinese perished. Some also fear that a country might use its nuclear weapons to
“dominate” its area. That argument was used with dramatic urgency before 2003 when Saddam Hussein supposedly posed great
danger, and it has been frequently applied to Iran. Exactly how that domination is to be carried out is never made clear. The notion,
apparently, is this: should an atomic rogue state rattle the occasional rocket, other countries in the area, suitably intimidated, would
bow to its demands. Far more likely, threatened states would make common cause with each other
and with other concerned countries (including nuclear ones) against the threatening neighbor. That is how countries
coalesced into an alliance of convenience to oppose Iraq’s region-threatening invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Yet another concern
has been that the weapons will go off, by accident or miscalculation, devastating the planet in the process:
the weapons exist in the thousands, sooner or later one or more of them will inevitably go off.  But those

prognostications have now failed to deliver for 70 years . That time period suggests something more
than luck is operating. Moreover, the notion that if one nuclear weapon goes off in one place, the world will necessarily be
plunged into thermonuclear cataclysm should remain in the domain of Hollywood scriptwriters.
AT Riots
 Inevitable
Riots inevitable several implications
Dohmen 11
Bert Dohmen is the President of Dohmen Capital Research, which has been providing market
timing for traders and investors world-wide for over 40 years. My firm utilizes advanced
technical analysis, combined with credit market analysis Jan 31
2011/https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2011/01/31/global-riots-opportunity-or-
danger/#6c6079dc2c33///dvb
Riots are in the streets around the globe ! The complaints include lack of “freedom,” lack of jobs, and especially
unaffordable food prices. Until last month it was Europe, with Greece, France, Britain, etc. Now it’s the Middle
East. Algeria and Tunisia were in the news last week. This week it spread to Egypt, Yemen, etc.  Governments will be toppled.
Isn’t it amazing how suddenly , in one week, all these people thousands of miles apart decide
to go into the streets to protest conditions they have lived under for the past 50 years or
more? Coincidence?

Governments will now be toppled, radicals will take over and Washington will demonstrate that the
U.S. “supports democracy” even if it means creating more nations that support terrorism . Iran
of the past 30 years will be the model. In fact, one Washington official said on FoxNews, “we have to support democratic reforms
even if it means creation of governments we won’t like.” In Pakistan there is the potential of nuclear bombs controlled by the
extremists.
The riots and upheavals are not short term events. These will continue and escalate as the
year goes on. I would not be an early bargain hunter. The U.S. stock market rally has made a
top and will now have a meaningful correction. Be prepared!
1. Avoid emerging markets
2. Oil prices will rise
3. Alternative energy should get a boost, led by solar
4. Gold and silver have probably made a correction bottom as Middle Eastern demand now
supplants the reduced crisis demand from Europe.
5. The general stock market, with the exceptions stated, will undergo a meaningful
correction.
 No Impact
No impact to riots – even the rioters know it’s senseless
Joseph 16 [George Joseph is a former editorial fellow at CityLab. George Joseph, 9-22-2016,
"From Ferguson to Charlotte, Why Police Protests Turn Into Riots," CityLab, accessed 7-26-2019,
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/09/from-ferguson-to-charlotte-why-police-protests-turn-
into-riots/500981/]
On Wednesday night, riots again rocked Charlotte, North Carolina, in response to the police shooting of Keith Lamont

Scott, a 43-year-old African-American man. Hundreds marched through the city’s entertainment district, once again
met by riot police deploying rubber bullets and tear gas. Some protesters threw bottles at police and damaged businesses late into the night,
as National Guard and State Highway Patrol troopers began to pour into the city. During the protest, one civilian was shot and seriously injured . Police claim
they were not involved in this shooting, which some protesters have disputed.

observers quickly denounced the riotous protests as senseless violence, criticizing the
Some

looting of a Walmart on Tuesday and a host of businesses in the downtown entertainment

district on Wednesday. But it is worth noting that the riots in Charlotte are strikingly similar to those that took
place in Baltimore in 2015, where the downtown entertainment district was also the site of clashes between protesters and patrons, and in Ferguson in 2014, where retail stores were a
frequent target of riots.
Keith Lamont Scott was shot in a predominately African-American neighborhood in Northeast Charlotte. But the protests that followed his death moved from that community into a majority-white area,
culminating in the blockading of Highway I-85 on Tuesday night. On Wednesday, nearly all of these sites of protests were in the downtown area’s upscale entertainment districts. (Scroll over the map below to see
racial breakdowns by Census tract.)
Martin Luther King Jr. said that “riots do not develop out of thin air.” Keith Lamont Scott’s death caused grievances long-simmering under the surface of Charlotte to boil over. Charlotte, despite its status as a
financial powerhouse in North Carolina, is intensely segregated, demographically and economically. As shown in the map below, the city’s wealth is concentrated on the majority-white south side, and its poverty
is disproportionately spread across the majority-black north and west sides. Scroll over the Census tracts to see the percentage of residents living below the poverty line per Census tract. (Note: some population
points from the outer areas of the county were not available in the Census’ data sets.)
As of 2014, 70 of Charlotte’s 79 high-poverty tracts were majority non-white, according to Gene Nichol, a Professor of Law at UNC Chapel Hill. And while 70 percent of black households there earn lessthan $60,000
a year, nearly 60 percent of white households make more. The median income for white families is 86 percent higher than for black and Hispanic ones.

we cannot understand the protests and sporadic riots and

Louis Hyman, an associate professor of history at Cornell University, argues

looting that have occurred over the past two days without looking at the intense geographic
and economic segregation in which they took place. From Ferguson to Baltimore to Charlotte, rioting, Hyman notes, often
breaks out in poor, black neighborhoods—where people feel both oppressed by police and by
the predatory lenders and overpriced stores in their communities. Hyman explored this idea in a conversation with CityLab:
Ferguson, Baltimore, and now Charlotte: We sometimes see that local protests in response to police killings morph into riots. Why do you think this is?

Riots, though they do occur, are relatively rare. More frequent are peaceful protests and community meetings, but these of course don’t get the same coverage. Riots occur because
these police killings just keep happening, no matter how many peaceful marches happen. It is, in every sense, maddening. Many have tried to discredit the riots

by pointing to the occasional looting that has occurred, claiming such actions by protestors are
destructive to "their own communities." In Ferguson, a QT gas station became an iconic site of destruction during the protests. In Baltimore, it was a CVS and the
payday lender ACE Cash Express. In Charlotte on Tuesday, it was a Walmart. What drives the animus against these institutions, which often seem to be large corporate chains, and why are they the secondary
targets of anti-police brutality protests?
For poor black people in cities, the surveillance that they experience at stores and on the streets are of a piece. When they walk in a store they are watched. When they leave the store, their receipts are
questioned. They might be ripped off, or not, but they are made to feel less like sovereign customers and more like suspects. Unwarranted police stops feel similar. Those who are watched feel disrespected, and
constantly reminded that they are not in charge. Riots provide that sense of control, but at a terrible cost.
Middle-class white people rarely have these experiences, so it is hard for them to understand what Walmart and police could have in common.
You have written that "riots reflect fury not just at the police, but at the constraints of the ghetto’s retail economy, where the poor pay more." How do police uphold this “ghetto retail economy,” where the poor
are deprived of the competitive market pricing present in better-off suburbs?
In places where there are few legitimate jobs, the underground economy makes up the difference. Payday lenders and pawn brokers are the tip of an illicit iceberg, of which the drug trade is a major part. Fighting
this illegal economy has resulted in police becoming an occupying force. Policing an economy with a handgun, needless to say, is an impossible task. Are there historical cases in which riots have been an effective
tactic for police brutality reform?

Riots draw attention to these issues in a way that protests and op-eds do not . It is hard to say that riots lead to
reform, but without the riots, these kinds of activities would easily slip forgotten into the news cycle. In that sense, they are effective. But too much rioting, and the

goodwill of Americans will ebb.

In the 1960s, mobile television cameras made police brutality real on the evening news, and gave the civil rights protesters legitimacy. But as the riots wore on through the ‘60s, that legitimacy turned into fear.
Smartphones and dash-cam documentation of police violence could have the same effect, but not if images of the riots drown them out. It is an unfortunate truth that some white Americans are more frightened
by a store burning than a policeman killing.
Is there something about the economic environments of the poor segregated black sections of Baltimore, Ferguson, and now Charlotte that may have made riots in response to police killings there more likely in a
way that larger cities have not, like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles?
Yes. Larger cities have faster-growing, more diversified economies. Poor people in second-tier cities—and rural people everywhere—are being left out of the digitally driven urban economy that is keeping our GDP
numbers (and stock tickers) so positive. Like New York, Charlotte’s main industry is finance. But unlike New York, for those left out of finance, Charlotte can look like any other de-industrialized town. In New York
(or Chicago or Los Angeles), there are other sectors in which to work. The best solution to these issues would be to provide job opportunities for the urban poor and to de-escalate the failed drug war. Until police
can be police, and not occupiers, there will be no end to these tragedies.
Looking at what has happened in Baltimore since the riots over the police-involved death of Freddie Gray, what can the people of Charlotte expect in the coming months?

No police officers were found guilty in Gray’s

They can expect a justice system that will not find any one individual in a position of power responsible.

death, and on some level, that is true. It is not a failure of individuals but a failure of the
system. I would urge Charlotteans not to put too much faith in holding someone accountable, but have a broader conversation about what can be done, systemically, to prevent this [police violence]
from continuing to happen. As long as police experience themselves as a militarized, occupying force, these kinds of abuses will continue.
Riots fail – they’re tactically counterproductive
Pinker 12 [Steven Pinker is a Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at
Harvard University. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications
such as the New York Times, Time and The Atlantic. JULY/AUGUST 2012 ISSUE, "Violence
Doesn’t Work (Most of the Time)," Atlantic, accessed 7-26-2019,
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/violence-doesn-t-work-most-of-the-
time/309031/]
People have long assumed that violence is necessary for political change. Rulers never cede power
voluntarily, the argument goes, so progressives have no choice but to contemplate the use of force to
bring about a better world, mindful of the trade-off between a small amount of violence now and acceptance of an unjust
status quo indefinitely. Terrorists invoke this trade-off to justify what would otherwise be wanton
murder. Even their most vociferous condemners concede that terrorism, though highly immoral, is often efficacious.
Of course, Mohandas Gandhi, and later Martin Luther King Jr., argued the opposite—that
violence, in addition to being morally heinous, is tactically counterproductive. Violent
movements attract thugs and firebrands who enjoy the mayhem . Violent tactics provide a pretext for
retaliation by the enemy and alienate third parties who might otherwise support the movement.
So how effective is violence? Political scientists have recently tried tallying the successes and failures of violent and nonviolent
movements. The evidence is piling up that Gandhi was right—at least on average. In separate analyses,
Audrey Cronin and Max Abrahms have shown that terrorist movements almost always fizzle
out without achieving any of their strategic aims . Just think of the failed independence
movements in Puerto Rico, Ulster, Quebec, Basque Country, Kurdistan, and Tamil Eelam. The
success rate of terrorist movements is, at best, in the single digits.
In their recent book, Why Civil Resistance Works, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan found that about three-quarters of
nonviolent movements get some or all of what they want, compared with only about a third
of the violent ones. The Arab Spring bears this out: consider the more or less nonviolent movements that ousted the leaders
of Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen (together with the violent one needed in Libya). Even more encouraging, the success rate of nonviolent
protest movements has steadily climbed since the 1940s, while that of violent movements has fallen since the 1980s.
AT Sanctions
 Sanctions Bad - U.S. Cred
Sanctions are actively hurting the U.S. , no sanctions would be better for US
legitimacy
Bandow 18' (Doug, september 20, 2018,Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America’s
New Global Empire. "Washington’s Endless Sanctions Are Finally Backfiring"
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/washingtons-endless-sanctions-are-finally-
backfiring/https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/washingtons-endless-sanctions-
are-finally-backfiring/
This arrogance has driven the Trump administration’s misguided policy toward Iran . After his visit to
Riyadh last year—the first trip of his presidency—Trump appeared to be taking orders from the Saudis. He abandoned the nuclear deal,
which created the most intrusive nuclear inspection regime ever, and demanded that Tehran drop its independent foreign policy, handing
Riyadh regional dominance. Washington insisted that it would deploy America’s full power
against any nation, friend or foe, that continued to trade with Iran. “Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the
United States,” tweeted the president. After seeking to prevent the Europeans from following an independent foreign policy, Washington sought to
coerce them to back its irresponsible course. Now it blames their refusal to do so on former Obama officials like John Kerry rather than the
administration’s own irresponsible arrogance.
Washington has encountered unusual resistance. American economic strength gives unique advantages vis-à-vis
other governments, but their acquiescence to the U.S. is also critical. And resistance may be
growing. For instance, China and India appear likely to continue at least some commercial
dealings with Iran, challenging the U.S.
More significantly, the Europeans are considering a number of strategies, including using the European Investment Bank and/or
their central banks to handle financial transactions with Iran. That would dare Washington to initiate economic war against them
—barring their firms from complying with American sanctions, establishing an alternative to the SWIFT global financial messaging
network, and creating a “special purpose” financial company to process payments for deals with
Iran. The latter would establish a de facto accounting firm to handle money both ways, keeping the cash within the EU and avoiding reliance on
banks vulnerable to U.S. sanctions. Germany’s finance ministry reported ongoing negotiations: “ The German government is
working together with [European agencies and countries] on maintaining financial payment
channels with Iran.” France is even considering using state-owned firms to trade with Iran.
Just as misguided U.S. policy toward Moscow pushed Russia and China together, reversing
Richard Nixon’s famous strategy, pervasive American sanctions now are pushing the Europeans
towards China and Russia.
And while European governments were not willing to greatly bestir themselves over Washington’s
attempts to isolate, say, Cuba and Sudan, Iran is different. America abandoned an international agreement,
dismissed European interests, disrupted burgeoning commerce, further destabilized the Middle East, and
demanded humiliating obedience. Europeans, used to giving in, now are angrier and less willing to accept the Trump
administration’s fait accompli. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire opined: “I want Europe to be a sovereign continent, not a vassal, and that
means having totally independent financing instruments that do not today exist.”
 AT Russia Sanctions - Don’t Work
Sanctions against Russia are no longer effective, if anything it backfires
Closson 19' ( January 1, 2019, Stacy Closson is a Global Fellow at Kennan and Senior Adjunct
Professional Lecturer at American University’s School of International Service. ... She came to
Patterson from the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, D.C.
where she was a Kennan fellow."Diminishing Returns: How Effective Are Sanctions Against
Russia?"www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/diminishing-returns-how-effective-are-sanctions-
against-russia
Signs of Diminishing Returns
In the case of the United States and Russia, sanctions regimes are overlapping and this is
undermining their strength. For example, targeting Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska’s Rusal
aluminum business backfired when the price of aluminum skyrocketed , threatening a potential global
shortage. The Trump administration is now backtracking , preparing to remove financial restrictions
on Rusal and two other Deripaska-linked companies. The previously mentioned DAKSAA and DETER bills under
consideration in the Senate hit companies involved in the Nordstream II pipeline from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea. This could alienate
France and Germany, who are critical to overall sanctions success. It
could also harm U.S. companies with ties to the
European energy interests, which are numerous and diverse.
If the point of sanctions is to punish the Russian government, the evidence is mixed . The sanctions
will make more enemies than friends, something that is difficult to recover, as the United States
discovered in Iraq. Surveys suggestthat Russians still very much support their government’s actions in Crimea. The smart sanctions targeting
oligarchs combined with a lack of foreign finance for their businesses has allowed the Russian government to consolidate even more assets. Indeed,
strong leaders like Vladimir Putin who have little political dissent and can manipulate elite politics are more likely to retain their position. At
the
same time, sanctions seem to be gradually straining the oligarchs’ relationship with the security
services and with the president.
Putin may be learning the wrong lessons in sanctions effectiveness. After the collapse of the
USSR, Russia used a series of sanctions against former Soviet states to extract concessions, but
by mid-2000, their impact was negligible . Now, learning from the sanctions against it since 2014, Russia is sanctioning over 300
Ukrainian business leaders and almost 70 businesses. Not only that, but Russia’s latest detention of Ukrainian ships
and sailors in the Sea of Azov preceded by Russian backed elections in the two separatist regions
of eastern Ukraine in violation of Minsk II signal that Putin is not deterred by the sanctions that
exist, nor the potential for more.
Going after Russia’s energy sector could also backfire. Forbidding U.S. companies from operating
in regions where Russian banks and energy companies are involved hampers the U.S. ability to
compete. Already, the absence of Western firms has increased the importance of Chinese investment in Russia’s energy projects, particularly in
the Arctic, albeit at the expense of Russia ceding a percentage of ownership of its firms. A second round of U .S. sanctions to be
determined this February 2019 under the 1991 Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and
Warfare Elimination Act in response to the Russian poisoning of the Skripals i n Britain may restrict all
Russian products into the United States, including the 5 percent of Russian crude imported from Russia. However, Russia is already redirecting oil to
China from Europe, and this would only further regionalize oil trade, which is not good in terms of maintaining a moderated global price.
There are also efforts by companies and countries globally to avert sanctions on Russia. Western creditors by fall 2016 were adjusting cooperation to
avoid those Russians directly targeted and look for other ventures. There are further reports that European companies were finding alternative ways to
place orders from Russian companies or exporting items to Russia through partners or subsidiaries in third countries .
The U.S. Congress
added a waiver to CAATSA to prevent sanctions on countries, such as India, who are reliant on
defense equipment from Russia.
Finally, the negative impact on Russia’s economy from sanctions appears to have hit a wall . Up
to 2017, most experts agreed sanctions were harming the Russian economy. I ndeed, the overall trend since
2014 is one in which the Russian economy is not growing as expected, but this is also viewed by experts as the result of a poor Russian domestic
business climate (e.g., attracting investors, stalled technology sector) and lower oil prices. Instead, there are some signs since 2017 that Russia is
recovering, albeit modestly, due to stronger global growth and rising oil prices. Moscow’s
foreign currency reserves are at an
all-time high and a dramatic reduction in capital flight has freed up dollars for social programs.
AT Ukraine Civil War
 Non-UQ
The Ukraine civil war has been going on since 2014
Twickel 19 (Nikolaus von Twickel – A Berlin-based writer focusing on the war in Donbass, “The
State of Play in the Donbass”, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/03/11/the-state-of-
play-in-the-donbass-a64764)
The Donbass region of eastern Ukraine is among Europe’s most deadly modern battlefields on which more
than 13,000 people have been killed since 2014. Tragically, the suffering people of Donbass happen to live at the wrong
place at the wrong time. While the overall death toll is shocking, the broad European public has become comfortably numb about it, as people are
dying in much smaller numbers than in 2014 and 2015. Last year, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) recorded 43 civilian
deaths – half as many as in 2017. While military violence is almost always an unnecessary evil, this one is particularly bizarre in that it occurs with little
or no military value. Since the signing of the Minsk Package of Measures in February 2015 (“Minsk II”), both sides have barely moved an inch over the
“Contact Line” agreed with French and German help in the Belarusian capital. Instead, Eastern
Ukraine has become an
information warfare battleground. The shootings and killings serve a political purpose – the sides
want to keep the status quo in order to avoid the agreement’s unsavoury political parts. They
may also want to send a signal to the outside world that they are under attack and convince
their domestic audience to put up with wartime constraints. As the military dimension has receded, the clash of
narratives has grown disproportionately. Ukraine is eager to tell the world that it is fighting Russia, who has attacked, invaded and occupied parts of the

country since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. For Russia and its proxies in Donbass, a civil war in eastern
Ukraine is happening.

Shelling and skirmishes still happen regularly in the Ukraine civil war
CFR 19 (Global Conflict Tracker – the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan foreign policy
think tank, “Conflict in Ukraine”, https://www.cfr.org/interactive/global-conflict-
tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine)
The conflict in eastern Ukraine has transitioned to a stalemate after it first erupted in early
2014, but shelling and skirmishes still occur regularly, including an escalation in violence in the
spring of 2018. Since taking office, the Donald J. Trump administration has continued to
pressure Russia over its involvement eastern Ukraine . In January 2018, the United States imposed new sanctions on twenty-one
individuals and nine companies linked to the conflict. In March 2018, the State Department approved the sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, the first sale of lethal weaponry
since the conflict began, and in July 2018 the Department of Defense announced an additional $200 million in defensive aid to Ukraine, bringing the total amount of aid provided
since 2014 to $1 billion. In October 2018, Ukraine joined the United States and seven other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries in a series of large-scale air
exercises in western Ukraine. The exercises came after Russia held its annual military exercises in September 2018, the largest since the fall of the Soviet Union. The crisis in
Ukraine began with protests in the capital city of Kiev in November 2013 against Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to reject a deal for greater economic

After a violent crackdown by state security forces unintentionally drew an

integration with the European Union.

even greater number of protesters and escalated the conflict, President Yanukovych fled the
country in February 2014.
 War Inevitable
The Ukraine civil war shows no sign of ending
GRI 19 (Global Risk Insight – founded at the London School of Economics (LSE) to revolutionize
the political risk industry, and bring it to the 21st century, “The Ukraine conflict in 2019:
Prospects for de-escalation look remote”, https://globalriskinsights.com/2019/01/prospects-for-
de-escalating-the-conflict-in-eastern-ukraine/)
Currently, there is no progress towards the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, amid
constant ceasefire violations and the continued presence of heavy weaponry in the conflict area.
There are growing military losses on both sides and ongoing civilian casualties. Moreover, monitoring
by the OSCE’s SMM (Special Monitoring Mission) faces severe impediments. Discussions within the framework of Normandy Four
format and the Trilateral Contact Group (TCG) on key issues–the exchange of hostages, the
ceasefire and withdrawal of
heavy weaponry, and illegal formations from the Ukrainian territory– have also been fruitless. The
provisions of the Minsk Agreements on the withdrawal of heavy weaponry and ceasefire control have been violated on numerous
occasions. For instance, over just a couple of weeks in December 2018, there were over 20,000 recorded ceasefire violations and
160 weapons used in direct violation of the agreed withdrawal lines (most of the weapons were used by pro-Russian separatists, in
areas controlled by them). Overall, since 2016, there has been a steady increase in ceasefire violations in the Donetsk region, with
slightly fewer in the Luhansk region: in total, there were 320,000 and 410,000 ceasefire violations in 2016 and 2017 respectively.
Although the final data for 2018 is not yet available, given this trend and reports throughout the year, we can expect the number of
ceasefire violations to remain at the same or even higher level. The
SMM continues to face difficulty with
verifying the withdrawal of heavy arms and ceasefire control , freedom of movement and
monitoring of situation along the perimeter of conflict area. In spite of an increase in OSCE observers, it
remains problematic for the SMM to monitor the area of the front line of the conflict. The OSCE has at its disposal around 800
international monitors, backed up by a recently relaunched drone surveillance program and video cameras. Nevertheless, SMM’s
monitoring efforts have been constantly limited due to restrictions of its freedom of movement. In the period from 1 July 2017 to 30
June 2018, SMM personnel were restricted in its movement 758 times. A large majority of these incidents (87%) occurred in the
territories that are under the control of pro-Russian separatists, up from 72% at the start of the given period, which suggests that
the degree of obstruction of the SMM’s work is increasing. At the same time, SMM’s monitoring drones are often shut down in the
Since 2016,
territories controlled by pro-Russian separatists, and video surveillance cameras in the conflict area are attacked.
Ukraine has tried without notable success to reach an agreement on the permanent deployment
of SMM’s international monitors along the conflict zone border , within the framework of the
Minsk Agreements. This has not materialized mainly because such a change in the mandate of the OSCE’s SMM requires a
consensus of all 57 OSCE Member States at the OSCE Permanent Council, and Russia will not support it.
 No Escalation
The Ukraine civil war won’t escalate in a nuclear way
Twickel 19 (Nikolaus von Twickel – A Berlin-based writer focusing on the war in Donbass, “The
State of Play in the Donbass”, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/03/11/the-state-of-
play-in-the-donbass-a64764)
Nevertheless, Ukraine should not become a nuclear power . Its own interests and those of the West
will best be served if Kiev fulfills its oft-made pledges to join the Nonproliferation Treaty (npt) as
a nonnuclear weapon state. The benefits provided by nuclear weapons are less certain and
more conditional than the proponents of nuclear prolif eration believe. When the costs and
complications associated with nuclear acquisition are taken into account, the case for Ukrainian
nuclear weapons is not compelling. The case for nuclear proliferation rests on the pacific effects of nuclear weapons. As Kenneth
Waltz asserts in the most famous advocacy of proliferation, nuclear spread "will promote peace and reinforce international stability." Because nuclear
weapons greatly in- crease the costs and risks of war, they induce caution in the behavior of states and substantially reduce the likelihood of
miscalculation. Wars between nuclear-armed states become simply too dangerous to fight. The force of this argument is greatly strengthened by the
experience of the Cold War, in which the two bitterly opposed protagonists avoided war for nearly half a century despite numerous crises and
provocations.
AFF -- AT UQ
UQ -- DH Inevitable
 Generic
No dollar collapse, and even if it does there’s no impact
Ross 6-25-19 Sean has a background which includes working as a bankruptcy specialist,
consultant, broker, financial advisor, and as a journalist. Sean is the founder and manager of
Free Lances, Ltd., a hub for freelance editors, researchers, and writers. What it would take for
the U.S. dollar to collapse https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex-
currencies/091416/what-would-it-take-us-dollar-collapse.asp
Ever since the launch of quantitative easing (QE), worried investors have asked, "will the U.S. dollar collapse?" It is an interesting
question that might superficially appear plausible, but a currency crisis in the United States is unlikely . Review
the dollar's strengths and weaknesses to see why.
History is full of sudden currency
collapses. Argentina, Hungary, Ukraine, Iceland, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Germany have
each experienced terrible currency crises since 1900. Depending
on your definition of a collapse, the Russian
currency calamity during 2016 could be considered another example. The root of any collapse
is a lack of faith in the stability or usefulness of money to serve as an effective store of value
or medium of exchange. As soon as users stop believing that a currency is useful, that currency is in trouble. This can be
brought about through improper valuations or pegging, chronic low growth or inflation.
Ever since the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944, other major governments and central banks have relied on the U.S. dollar to back
up the value of their own currencies. Through its reserve currency status, the dollar receives extra legitimacy in the eyes of domestic
users, currency traders and participants in international transactions.
The U.S. dollar is not the only reserve currency in the world, though it is the most prevalent. As of
September 2016, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved four other reserve currencies: the euro, British pound
sterling, Japanese yen and Chinese yuan. It is important that the dollar has competitors as an international Reserve
currency because it creates a theoretical alternative for the rest of the world in case American policymakers lead the dollar down a
damaging path.
Finally, the American economy is still the largest and most important economy in the world.
Even though growth has slowed significantly since 2001, the American economy still regularly
outperforms its peers in Europe and Japan. The dollar is backed up by the productivity of
American workers, or at least so long as American workers continue to use the dollar almost
exclusively.
The fundamental weakness of the US dollar is that it is only valuable through government fiat.
This weakness is shared by every other major national currency in the world and is perceived as
normal in the modern age. However, as recently as the 1970s, it was considered a somewhat radical proposition. Without the
discipline imposed by a commodity-based currency standard (such as gold), the worry is that governments might print too much
money for political purposes or to conduct wars.
In fact, one reason the IMF was formed was to monitor the Federal Reserve and its commitment to Bretton Woods. Today, the IMF
uses the other reserves as a discipline on Fed activity. If
foreign governments or investors decided to switch
away from the U.S. dollar en masse, the flood of short positions could significantly hurt
anyone with assets denominated in dollars.
If the Federal Reserve creates money and the U.S. government assumes and monetizes debt faster than the U.S. economy grows, the future value of the currency should fall in
absolute terms. Fortunately for the United States, virtually every alternative currency is backed by similar economic policies. Even if the dollar faltered in absolute terms, it may
still be stronger globally, due to its strength relative to the alternatives.
There are some conceivable scenarios that might cause a sudden crisis for the dollar. The most realistic is the dual threat of high inflation and high debt,  a scenario in
which rising consumer prices force the Fed to sharply raise interest rates. Much of the national debt is made up of relatively short-term instruments, so a spike in rates would act
like an adjustable-rate mortgage after the teaser period ends. If the U.S. government struggled to afford its interest payments, foreign creditors could dump the dollar and
trigger a collapse.
If the U.S. entered a steep recession or depression without dragging the rest of the world with it, users might leave the dollar. Another option would involve some major power,
such as China or a post-European Union Germany, reinstating a commodity-based standard and monopolizing the reserve currency space. However, even in these scenarios, it is
not clear that the dollar necessarily would collapse.

The collapse of the dollar remains highly unlikely. Of the preconditions necessary to force a
collapse, only the prospect of higher inflation appears reasonable. Foreign exporters such as
China and Japan do not want a dollar collapse because the United States is too important a
customer. And even if the United States had to renegotiate or default on some debt
obligations, there is little evidence that the world would let the dollar collapse and risk
possible contagion.

No US dollar collapse anywhere in the near future

Watson 15 (Patrick Watson - a compulsive trend-observer and senior economic analyst.
Patrick specializes in a global macro perspective, “Why Not to Worry about a US Dollar Collapse”
– Mauldin Economics, https://www.mauldineconomics.com/resources/why-not-to-worry-
about-a-us-dollar-collapse)
In a world without fixed exchange rates, a nation can gain an advantage by manipulating its currency so that the value appears
lower. This makes exports seem less expensive to foreign buyers while discouraging imports. The US has played this game
masterfully in recent decades—keeping the dollar low while still importing mass quantities of goods from abroad. Something
changed in the last few years, though. The chart below shows the US Dollar Index, which tracks the dollar’s value against a basket of
other major currencies. Notice how it shot higher in the last half of 2014 and then stabilized in a much higher range in 2015. The US
Federal Reserve’s decision to end its “QE3” stimulus program, A
major reduction in US oil imports as domestic
shale production soared, The European Central Bank’s move to ease the continent’s debt crisis
with new stimulus, and A massive devaluation of the Japanese yen. Compared to other world currencies, the US dollar is
hardly collapsing. It is strengthening, and no other currency shows signs of catching up. Some currencies, no doubt, will collapse in
the coming decades, but the dollar is way down the list. How can this be? Ironically, cutting all ties to gold actually
helps the dollar. Currency values are always relative to another currency. That means it is mathematically impossible for every
currency to lose value. When you sell currency A (whatever it is), you must simultaneously buy currency B. That means some
currency will always be on top of the pile... even if the pile is sinking. The
dollar has stayed relatively strong, despite
US economic problems, because other currencies look even worse . Many foreign investors see
the US as an island of stability in a storm-tossed world. They want to own dollar-denominated
assets. That keeps the dollar strong. For example, look at this chart showing the US dollar exchange rate against the
Japanese yen over the last five years. In 2012, before the Bank of Japan launched its latest stimulus program, it only took around 80
yen to buy a dollar. By mid-2015, the rate was over 120 yen to the dollar. If you are an American investor worried about the dollar,
imagine how this must look to Japanese investors. They might gladly trade places with you, if they could get dollars in exchange. The
same applies, more or less, to all other currencies. The
dollar looks more attractive than the home currencies
of many foreign investors. Anything can happen in the short term , of course, but a dollar
collapse is unlikely in this environment.

US dollar hegemony cannot be replaced

Anderson 18 (Anthony Anderson - Enhanced corporate culture via education in the
numismatic fields that we served while becoming a member of the American Numismatic
Association, Industry Council For Tangible Assets, “Currency Wars: Countries Reduce Dollar
Dependence”, https://gsiexchange.com/currency-wars-countries-reduce-dollar-dependence/)
There is an alarming trend in which more and more countries are seeking to gain independence
from the US dollar. Here’s what’s been happening lately: Last week, Iran announced its plans to adopt the euro in place of the
dollar as its main currency for international exchange. A few months ago, Venezuela attempted to launch an oil-backed
cryptocurrency. Earlier this year, China introduced the first ever yuan-denominated oil contracts; a successful event that raised the
yuan’s status on the international stage. In the meantime, Russia has been actively increasing its gold reserves. Their primary goal is
not only to end dollar dependence but to end the US dollar’s global dominance. Despite
their efforts, none of them
have come close to dethroning the dollar’s global status. Amid tensions between the US and
other nations, including its allies, and Trump’s preference for a strong dollar, some analysts
believe that the countries maneuvering against the dollar are looking to exploit the
opportunities presented by this current state of geopolitical unease. Attempts to replace the
dollar have been made several times in the past. All attempts have failed.
 Foreign Intervention
American intervention in foreign conflicts maintains dollar hegemony
Hatfield 18 (Matthew Hatfield, Journalist at Harvard Political Review, "The Worrisome Deal:
China and Saudi Arabia", 12/18/18, https://harvardpolitics.com/world/the-worrisome-deal-
china-and-saudi-arabia/)
Protectionism of the petrodollar can be an ulterior motive that explains US intervention into oil-
exporting nations. In the years after Saddam’s announcement, President George Bush asserted that his regime
possessed weapons of mass destruction. Following  9/11, the United States invaded Iraq, deposed  Saddam
Hussein, and converted Iraqi oil sales back to the U.S. dollar . This exact pattern was repeated
with Muammar Gaddafi when he attempted to create a unified African currency backed by Libyan  gold reserves to to sell
African oil. Shortly after his announcement, rebels armed by the US government and allies
overthrew the dictator and his regime. After his death, the idea that African oil would be sold on
something other than the dollar quickly died out.  
 Sanctions/Backlash
The US makes profit from the rest of the world – sanctions and hostility
terminate what they don’t govern
Todhunter 6/28
Colin Todhunter is an extensively published independent writer and former social policy
researcher. 6/28/19/https://off-guardian.org/2019/06/28/from-dollar-hegemony-to-global-
warming-globalization-glyphosate-and-doctrines-of-consent///dvb
Since the fall of the USSR in 1991, Rancourt says, US war campaigns have , among other things, protected the US

dollar from abandonment , destroyed nations seeking sovereignty from US dominance, secured the opium trade,
increased control over oil and have frustrated Eurasian integration.
In addition, we have seen certain countries face a bombardment of sanctions and hostility in an
attempt to destroy energy-producing centres that the US does not control, not least Russia.

Since that day [dissolution of Bretton Woods], a true financial empire has emerged , the US dollar’s
hegemony has been established, and we have entered a true paper currency era. There is no
precious metal behind the US dollar. The government’s credit is the sole support for the US
dollar. The US makes a profit from the whole world.
This means that the Americans can obtain material wealth from the world by printing a piece
of green paper . […] If we [now] acknowledge that there is a US dollar index cycle [punctuated by engineered crises, including
war] and the Americans use this cycle to harvest from other countries, then we can conclude that it was time for the Americans to
harvest China…
 AT Petro-Yuan
The petrodollar doesn’t exist and there’s no impact
Bulloch 18 (Douglas Bulloch, Professor of International Relations Theory and International
Politics at London School of Economics, "Why The Petro-Dollar Is A Myth, And The Petro-Yuan
Mere Fantasy", 4/26/18 https://www.forbes.com/sites/douglasbulloch/2018/04/26/the-petro-
dollar-is-a-myth-the-petro-yuan-mere-fantasy/#250249a36a14)
China's recent introduction of yuan-denominated oil futures has attracted some fairly extensive
press commentary. Partly this is down to a habit of over-interpreting everything happening in China as just more evidence of
their unstoppable rise to global superpower status, but it is also due to some profound misconceptions about the importance of oil
as a commodity. It
is widely thought, for example, that oil somehow underwrites the global financial
system and guarantees the U.S. dollar's hegemonic status.
Inevitably, stories about the toppling of the "Petro-dollar" and the long yearned for rise of an alternative reserve currency, one not
dependent on the whims of a capricious political elite in Washington, have proliferated across the alter-net and on the state-backed
media platforms of Russia and China.
But we should be clear: the Petro-dollar does not exist, and really hasn't done in any meaningful way
since the 1970s, therefore the "Petro-yuan" has no future. This is not to say that oil will never be traded in yuan,
that is likely, but it is to say that trading oil in yuan will not suddenly transform the currency into the
global reserve many claim is inevitable.
UQ -- DH Low
 Generic
US dollar status as global reserve currency edges down further
Richter 19 (Wolf Richter, 4-1-2019, “U.S. dollar status as global reserve currency edges down
further”, https://wolfstreet.com/2019/04/01/us-dollar-status-as-global-reserve-currency-edges-
down-further/)
The amount of USD-denominated exchange reserves ticked down to $6.62 trillion , and the dollar’s share

of global foreign exchanges reserves dropped to 61.7% , the lowest since 2013 . In 1999, the euro
became an accounting currency in the financial markets, replacing the European Currency Unit. On January 1, 2002, Euro banknotes
were released into circulation and gradually replaced the national banknotes of the original member states of the Eurozone. Note
the drop of the dollar’s share, from 71.5% in 2001 to 66.5% in 2002. Today, the euro has replaced 19 national currencies. The
combined share of the dollar and the euro edged down to 82.4% in Q4 2018 . The remaining
currencies make up 17.6% of allocated global reserve currencies. On October 1, 2016, the IMF added the Chinese renminbi to its
currency basket, the Special Drawing Rights (SDR), elevating it to an official global reserve currency. Hopes by some folks that it
would dethrone the dollar as hegemon have been disappointed.

There are four interlocking pieces to this monetary hegemony: (1) The ability to
force other countries to trade in dollars, (2) controlling access to the global
payments system, (3) the primacy of the dollar as a global reserve currency (4)
the nature of the dollar as a fiat currency. These are all currently under threat.
Mok 7/1
Andy Mok is the founder and president of Red Pagoda Resources. He has significant experience
in business management, private equity and public policy. 1-July-
2019/https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-07-01/Why-has-the-clock-started-ticking-on-the-U-S-
dollar-deathwatch--HXc5WwRLWw/index.html///dvb
The dollar as a unit of account
By forcing other to price goods and services in dollars, the U.S. creates demand for its currency. This requires buyers to find ways to
earn dollars to pay for their purchases. However, because the dollar is a fiat currency (more on this below), the

U.S. can create dollars literally out of thin air without providing anything of value in exchange
for a new batch (or boatload) of dollars. As American economist Barry Eichengreen noted "It costs only a few cents for the
Bureau of Engraving and Printing to produce a 100 dollars' bill, but other countries had to pony up 100 dollars' of actual goods in
order to obtain one."
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (C) announces a record 8.9 billion U.S. dollars' fine against the
French bank BNP Paribas for violating international sanctions during a press conference at the U.S. Justice Department in
Washington, U.S., June 30, 2014. /VCG Photo
Control of the global payment system
However, on June 28, France, Germany and the UK announced that an alternative payment system called Instex
became operational . This payment balancing system permits companies in Europe to buy Iranian goods, and vice-versa,
without accessing SWIFT. Given the growing number of countries which the U.S. has threatened with economic
aggression including China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela and others, the desire for an alternative payment
system is undeniable .
The dollar two-step: A fiat currency becomes the global reserve currency
Before August 13, 1971 the U.S. dollar was backed by gold-meaning that a dollar could be converted into a certain amount of gold, a
physical commodity with real value. However on that fateful day, President Nixon declared that dollars could no longer
be exchanged for gold or any other reserve asset and turned the dollar in fiat money (meaning a
currency with no intrinsic value).
But to sustain global demand for the dollar, the U.S. also reached an agreement in the 1970s whereby Saudi Arabia would only
accept payment for oil in dollars irrespective of whom or where the buyer was. With oil being the world's most valuable commodity,
this ensured that countries everywhere would need to secure dollars to both settle oil purchases and hedge against oil price changes
and to manage the value of their own currencies. As noted above, this allowed the U.S. to enforce the dollar as a global unit of
account. Combined with the ability to print money, this provided the fuel for unlimited
spending and American hegemony.
Both those the U.S. deems adversaries such as Iran, and Russia as well as ostensible allies like France, Germany and the UK

have increasingly compelling and urgent reasons to circumvent dollar hegemony.

While appearing unassailable, the dollar may be much more vulnerable than many suspects .
The reporting by some well-known western business media outlets only reinforces these erroneous perceptions since those doing
the reporting seem to not have a sufficient grasp of the underlying accounting and economic principles underpinning dollar
hegemony.
Events described above demonstrate that the countdown to the demise of dollar hegemony has begun. Given the
accelerating pace of technological, social and political change, its end may be arrives sooner than expected.

Others dedolarizing now

Lawrence 7/22
Patrick Lawrence is a longtime columnist, essayist, critic, and lecturer. He was a correspondent
abroad (writing as Patrick L. Smith) for many years, chiefly for the Far Eastern Economic Review,
the International Herald Tribune, and The New Yorker, and chiefly in Asia. July 22,
2019/https://consortiumnews.com/tag/patrick-lawrence///dvb
The impulse to dedollarize international trade and financial transactions has been evident
for some time. Russia has actively encouraged its trading partners to avoid the dollar in favor of
local currencies since Washington imposed sanctions against Russia following the U.S.–cultivated coup in Ukraine five years

ago. Russia is now recruiting other nations to participate in its alternative to the U.S.–
controlled SWIFT bank-messaging system . China has set up a parallel mechanism, the Cross–Border Interbank
Payments System.    
The G–20 gathering marked an important step for these de-dollarization efforts . France, Germany,
and Britain announced on the opening day that a trading system developed over the past year to circumvent U.S.
sanctions against Iran — and any entity transacting with it — is now operational. The Instrument in Support of Trade
Exchanges, or Instex, replaces the Special Purpose Vehicle Europeans devised a year ago. All three sponsors, along with Russia,
China, and the U.S., are signatories of the 2015 accord governing Iran’s nuclear programs, which the U.S. repudiated last year.
 DH Low -- China
China is challenging the U.S. for the currency hegemon now
Kalkine 6/25. Team Kalkine, Kalkine Media. 25 June 2019. "Europe And China
Colluding to Challenge The US Dollar Hegemony".
https://kalkinemedia.com/2019/06/25/europe-and-china-colluding-to-challenge-
the-us-dollar-hegemony/
China, with its giant economy, has a huge influence on world economies, particularly those
connected to it. It is one of the largest export partners of the United States , with around $ 129.9 billion
of goods and services exported in 2017 and it is also the largest import partner whose imports were valued at $ 505.5 billion as of
2017, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative. The Chinese are just putting in place the financial plumbing
that could, if it finds support from relevant reforms and the essential political action, lay the grounds for a future where RMB would
be of immense global prominence. Under the controversial global development strategy, Belt and Road Initiative, which is aimed at
financing infrastructure projects in 152 countries as well as international organizations across regions, China
offered
incentives to the recipient countries to use the RMB as an invoicing currency. Beijing also
launched a contract in RMB-termed oil futures in 2018 that gained quite the prominence and
may prove to be threat to the US dollar with expanding volumes. The Chinese government has
eased down interest rates to zero, that helps in making the Chinese bond market quite
attractive for the foreign investors . However, although a flourishing Chinese economy is backing the RMB’s
international stature, there are some limitations in terms of China’s fixed-exchange rate regime and rigid capital account. The nation
restricts capital movements to maintain control over its domestic economy. Moreover, RMB is not a freely convertible currency that
poses another shortcoming to become the global currency. While China’s quest for the internationalisation of its RMB is recent, the
Europeans have been contemplating to do so with their explicit ambition.
 DH Low -- Debt
US debt amounts to 200 trillion and the Fed lost all its value – all comes back to
the greenback
Guzman 7/4
Timothy Alexander Guzman is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on political,
economic, media and historical spheres. He has been published in Global Research, The
Progressive Mind, European Union Examiner, News Beacon Ireland, WhatReallyHappened.com,
EIN News and a number of other alternative news sites. He is a graduate of Hunter College in
New York City. July 4 2019/https://www.globalresearch.ca/a-world-without-dollars-are-we-
approaching-the-end-of-americas-financial-order/5667143///dvb
In the last decade or so, the reputation of the U.S. dollar has been widely discredited because it is viewed

by many governments around the world as a risky asset since the U.S. econ omy holds more than
$21 trillion in debt and if you add the unfunded liabilities in the form of promises to ensure payments to retirees

associated with government pensions, entitlement programs and social security amounts to more than $200 trillion .
The dollar is a fiat currency based on “faith” which is issued by the Treasury department and backed by the full weight of U.S.

government, but countries who are routinely threatened by Washington with economic sanctions have
lost faith in the dollar . The dollar is a debt instrument issued to the public with no real objective measure of the
dollar’s true value. Since the Federal Reserve Bank was founded in 1913, the dollar has lost over 97% of its value . In
2018, rt.comreported that
“the Russian president noted that there are risks in settlements in national currencies, but they could be minimized. “ Risks
exist everywhere and they need to be minimized, and in order to minimize them
diversification is required.”  Holding dollars is risky “According to Putin, the US dollar is also a risky financial tool. “US
foreign debt amounts to $20 trillion. What will be next? Who knows?”
The U.S. will never be able to finance their debt even if they brought back their
manufacturing base , reduce government spending and end all of their wars including those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Peter
Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital recently told Rick Sanchez of RT News that
“All the signs are already there. Look at what’s happening out there. The stock market is falling , Look at
homebuilders , the housing stocks , the financials , the retailers – all these are the same things that were

happening in 2007 leading to that crisis,” Schiff warned. “ So, what you’ve got to do is get out of U.S. dollar
assets. The dollar is going to be the biggest casualty along with the American standard of
living.”
 DH Low -- Sanction Circumvention
The dollar is an unfunded liability – Other countries using the Yuan, Ruble, and
Cryptocurrencies to build new payment and transfer systems outside the US-
dollar domain to circumvent sanctions.
Koenig 7/22
Peter Koenig has studied the phenomenology of money since the early 1980s, giving
presentations and performing original research with small groups. on 2019-07-22
https://www.21cir.com/2019/07/the-world-is-dedollarizing-the-end-of-dollar-hegemony///dvb
No longer international monetary transactions controlled by US banks and – by the US-dollar
controlled international transfer system, SWIFT, the system that allows and facilitates US financial and economic sanctions of all
kinds – confiscation of foreign funds, stopping trades between countries, blackmailing ‘unwilling’ nations into submission.
What would happen? – Well, the short answer is that we would certainly be a step close to world peace, away from US
(financial) hegemony , towards nation states’ sovereignty, towards a world geopolitical structure of
more equality.
We are not there yet. But graffities are all over the walls signaling that we are moving quite rapidly in that
direction.
And Trump knows it and his handlers know it – which is why the onslaught of financial crime – sanctions – trade
wars – foreign assets and reserves confiscations , or outright theft – all in the name of “Make America Great
Again”, is accelerating exponentially and with impunity.
What is surprising is that the Anglo-Saxon hegemons do not seem to understand that all the threats ,
sanctions, trade barriers, are provoking the contrary to what should contribute to American
Greatness.
Once the world gets sick and tired of the grotesque dictate of Washington and the sanction schemes for those who do no longer
want to go along with the oppressive rules of the US, they will be eager to jump on another boat, or boats – abandoning the
dollar and valuing their own currencies.
The US-dollar , a fiat currency, by its sheer money mass, may bend national economies up or down, depending in which
direction the country is favored by the hegemon. Let’s put the absurdity of this phenomenon in perspective.

Today, the dollar is based not even on hot air and is worth less than the paper it is printed on .
The US GDP is US$ 21.1 trillion in 2019 (World Bank estimate), with current debt of 22.0 trillion, or about 105% of GDP. The world
GDP is projected for 2019 at US$ 88.1 trillion (World Bank).
According to Forbes, about US$ 210 trillion are “unfunded liabilities ” (net present value of future projected but
unfunded obligations (75 years), mainly social security, Medicaid and accumulated interest on debt), a figure about 10 times the US
GDP, or two and a half times the world’s economic output.
This figure keeps growing, as interest on debt is compounded , forming part of what would be called in business terms
‘debt service’ (interest and debt amortization), but is never ‘paid back’.
This monstrous debt is partly owned in the form of treasury bonds as foreign exchange reserves
by countries around the world.
The bulk of it is owed by the US to itself – with no plans to ever “pay it back” – but rather create
more money, more debt, with which to pay for the non-stop wars, weapon manufacturing and lie-propaganda to keep the populace
quiet and in lockstep.
It would generate a chain reaction that might bring down the whole dollar-dependent world economy . It

would create an exponential “Lehman Brothers 2008” on global scale .

The world is increasingly aware of this real threat , an economy built on a house of cards – and countries
want to get out of the trap, out of the fangs of the US-dollar . It’s not easy with all the dollar-denominated
reserves and assets invested abroad, all over the globe.
A solution may be gradually divesting them (US-dollar liquidity and investments) and moving into non-dollar dependent currencies,
like the Chinese Yuan and the Russian Ruble, or a basket of eastern currencies that are delinked from the
dollar and its international payment scheme, the SWIFT system.

There are increasingly blockchain technology alternatives available. China, Russia, Iran and Venezuela are already

experimenting with government-controlled cryptocurrencies to build new payment and transfer

systems outside the US-dollar domain to circumvent sanctions.
Any country is welcome to join this new alliance of countries and new but fast-growing approach to alternative trading – and to
finding back to national political and financial sovereignty.
In the long-run, the benefits of German-Russian business and economic relations will far outweigh
the illegal US sanctions . Once this awareness has sunk in, there is nothing to stop Russian-German business associations
to flourish, and to attract other EU-Russian business relations – all outside of the dollar-dominated banking and transfer system.
President Trump’s trade war with China will eventually also have a dedollarization effect, as China will seek – and

already has acquired – other trading partners , mostly Asian, Asian-Pacific and European – with whom China will
deal in other than dollar-denominated contracts and outside the SWIFT transfer system, for example using the

Chinese International Payment System (CIPS) which, by the way, is open for international trade by any country
across the globe.
This will not only circumvent punishing tariffs on China’s exports (and make US customers of Chinese
goods furious, as their Chinese merchandise is no longer available at affordable prices, or no longer available at all), but this strategy
will also enhance the Chinese Yuan on international markets and boost the Yuan even further as a reliable reserve

currency – ever outranking the US-dollar.

In fact, in the last 20 years, dollar-denominated assets in international reserve coffers have declined from more

than 90% to below 60% and will rapidly decline further as Washington’s coercive financial policies prevail. Dollar reserves are
rapidly replaced by reserves in Yuan and gold, and that even in such staunch supporters of the west as is Australia.
Finally, investments of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), also called the New Silk Road , will be mostly made in
Yuan and local currencies of the countries involved and incorporated in one or more of the several BRI land and maritime routes

that eventually will span the globe.

The BRI promises to become the next economic revolution , a non-dollar economic
development scheme, over the coming decades, maybe century, connecting peoples and countries – cultures, research and

teaching without, however, forcing uniformity, but promoting cultural diversity and human equality – and
all of it outside the dollar dynasty, breaking the nefarious dollar hegemony.
UQ -- DH Unsustainable
 Generic
The collapse of dollar hegemony is a question of when not if
Hedges 2/4 (Chris Hedges a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, a New York Times best-selling
author, a professor in the college degree program offered to New Jersey state prisoners by
Rutgers University. 04 February 2019. "Goodbye to the Dollar". Truth
Dig.https://www.truthdig.com/articles/goodbye-to-the-dollar/
When George W. Bush unilaterally invaded Iraq , defying with his doctrine of preemptive war international law and
dismissing protests from traditional allies, he began the rupture. But Trump has deepened the fissures . The
Trump administration’s withdrawal from the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement, although Iran had abided
by the agreement, and demand that European nations also withdraw or endure U.S. sanctions saw European nations
defect and establish an alternative monetary exchange system that excludes the United States .
Iran no longer accepts the dollar for oil on international markets and has replaced it with the
euro, not a small factor in Washington’s deep animus to Teheran. Turkey is also abandoning the dollar. The U.S.
demand that Germany and other European states halt the importation of Russian gas likewise saw the Europeans ignore
Washington. China and Russia, traditionally antagonistic, are now working in tandem to free themselves
from the dollar. Moscow has transferred $100 billion of its reserves into Chinese yuan, Japanese yen and euros. And, as
ominously, foreign governments since 2014 are no longer storing their gold reserves in the United
States or, as with Germany, removing them from the Federal Reserve. Germany has repatriated its 300
tons of gold ingots. The Netherlands repatriated its 100 tons. The U.S. intervention in Venezuela, the potential trade war with China,
the withdrawal from international climate accords, leaving the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the paralysis in
Washington and disruptive government shutdown and increased hostilities with Iran bode ill for America. American
foreign
and financial policy is hostage to the bizarre whims of stunted ideologues such as Mike Pompeo, John
Bolton and Elliott Abrams. This ensures more global chaos as well as increased efforts by nations
around the globe to free themselves from the economic stranglehold the U nited States
effectively set in place following World War II. It is only a question of when not if the dollar
will be sidelined . That it was Trump, along with his fellow ideologues of the extreme right, who destroyed the
international structures put in place by global capitalists, rather than socialists these capitalists invested tremendous
resources to crush, is grimly ironic.

Collapse of dollar heg is impossible to predict – but it will inevitably happen

Hedges 2/4 (Chris Hedges a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, a New York Times best-selling
author, a professor in the college degree program offered to New Jersey state prisoners by
Rutgers University. 04 February 2019. "Goodbye to the Dollar". Truth
Dig.https://www.truthdig.com/articles/goodbye-to-the-dollar/
“Ultimately, we will have reserve currencies other than the U.S. dollar ,” the Bank of England Gov. Mark
Carney announced last month. Sixty-one percent of foreign currency reserves are in dollars . As these
dollar currency reserves are replaced by other currencies, the retreat from the dollar will
accelerate. The recklessness of America’s financial policies will only exacerbate the crisis. “If
unlimited borrowing, financed by printing money, were a path to prosperity,” Irwin M. Stelzer of the Hudson Institute said recently,
“then Venezuela and Zimbabwe would be top of the growth tables.” McCoy explains what a world financial order untethered from
the dollar would look like: For the majority of Americans, the 2020s will likely be remembered as a demoralizing decade of rising
prices, stagnant wages, and fading international competitiveness. After years of swelling deficits fed by incessant warfare in distant
lands, in
2030 the U.S. dollar eventually loses its special status as the world’s dominant reserve
currency. Suddenly, there are punitive price increases for American imports ranging from clothing to computers. And the costs
for all overseas activity surges as well, making travel for both tourists and troops prohibitive. Unable to pay for swelling deficits by
selling now-devalued Treasury notes abroad, Washington is finally forced to slash its bloated military budget. Under pressure at
home and abroad, its forces begin to pull back from hundreds of overseas bases to a continental perimeter. Such a desperate move,
however, comes too late. Faced with a fading superpower incapable of paying its bills , China, India,
Iran, Russia, and other powers provocatively challenge U.S. dominion over the oceans, space,
and cyberspace. The collapse of the dollar will mean, McCoy writes, “soaring prices, ever-rising unemployment, and a
continuing decline in real wages throughout the 2020s, domestic divisions widen into violent clashes and divisive debates, often over
symbolic, insubstantial issues.” The deep disillusionment and widespread rage will give an opening to Trump, or a Trump-like
demagogue, to lash out, perhaps by inciting violence, against scapegoats at home and abroad. But by then the U.S. empire will be so
diminished its threats will be, at least to those outside its borders, largely meaningless. It is impossible to predict when
this flight from the dollar will take place . By the second half of the 19th century, the U.S. economy had overtaken
Britain, but it was not until the middle of the 20th century that the dollar replaced the pound sterling to become the dominant
currency in international trade. The pound sterling’s share of currency reserves among international central banks fell from around
60 percent in the early 1950s to less than 5 percent by the 1970s. Its value declined from more than 4 dollars per pound at the end
of WWII to near-parity with the dollar. The British economy went into a tailspin. And that economic jolt marked for
the British, as it will for us, the end of an empire.

Collapse of dollar hegemony cannot be stopped

Shea 5/28 (Rainer Shea, a political jounalist for multiple companies, uses the
written word to construct establishment propaganda to promomte meaningful
political actions. 28 May 2019. "It May Not Be Fully Visible, But We’re in the Final
Years of the American Empire"https://ghionjournal.com/it-may-not-be-fully-
visible-but-were-in-the-final-years-of-the-american-empire/)
But reality will catch up with the empire’s attempts to halt its own unraveling. America’s great undoing will be
the collapse of the dollar—an eventuality which the U.S. has been trying to stave
off by intervening in Iran and Venezuela due to their rejection of America’s
currency. If the U.S. were to conquer both of these countries, it still wouldn’t be
able to halt the transition away from American trade dominance that nations
around the world are making. With Bush’s unilateral invasion of Iraq, the U.S. lost the respect of many nations
around the world, and Trump’s trade wars and rejections of international agreements like
the Paris climate accord have accelerated this rupture between the U.S. and the
rest of the world. America’s global dollar reserves are being replaced by other
currencies. And as this process continues, it’s going to combine with the country’s internal financial mismanagement to
create a 21st century Great Depression. By the end of the 2020s, the U.S. may be so
economically crippled that it will have to withdraw its global military forces en
masse. This will represent the final death of the American empire , which historian Alfred
McCoy has predicted will come around the year 2030. At that point, writes McCoy, the country will be experiencing “soaring prices,
ever-rising unemployment, and a continuing decline in real wages throughout the 2020s, [as] domestic divisions widen into violent
The decline of the dollar, as well as
clashes and divisive debates, often over symbolic, insubstantial issues.”
potential wars with Iran, Russia, and China, are going to be the “stress test” that
Orlov anticipates will end America as we know it . This collapse can’t be stopped . The question is
what will happen after American dominance goes under. This question will be decided by those who make the choice between
whether they’ll continue to support capitalism, or fight for a world that isn’t controlled by fascistic governments and powerful
multinational corporations. After the U.S. loses its power, the corporatocracy will use the
private armies of mercenary companies like Blackwater to carry out its regime
change projects. Already, Blackwater is aiming to cash in on American desires for continued military involvement by
becoming part of the wars in Afghanistan and Syria. This privatization of the empire will be an
unprecedented corporate takeover, and it will be facilitated by a collection of
world powers that have embraced ethno-nationalism and authoritarianism. It’s
entirely possible that The European Union will work as one of these authoritarian powers; its recent efforts to control information
and exert police power over the populations of its member countries show that the EU could soon become an instrument for social
This will be paralleled by a plethora of countries which are quickly
control within its region.
shifting towards despotism and ethnic nationalism, with America having some of
the greatest potential for falling into tyranny.
Too many alt causes -- dollar heg will inevitably collapse
Palley 06 (Thomas Palley, Palley runs the Economics for Democratic and Open Societies
Project, and is the former chief economist of the US-China Economic & Security Review
Commission. He is the author of “Plenty of Nothing: The Downsizing of the American Dream and
the Case for Structural Keynesianism” (Princeton University Press, 1998), "Why Dollar
Hegemony is Unhealthy", 6/20/06, https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/why-dollar-hegemony-
unhealthy)
Conventional theory says the dollar will only lose its dominance when countries become
saturated with dollar holdings. At that stage they will cease buying and may even sell dollars, causing the currency to fall.
The problem with this story is that countries have no incentive to sell dollars , as this would kill
the golden goose of export-led growth.
The buyer-of-last-resort story suggests a different take . One reason the dollar could topple is if countries finally
manage to develop their own consumption markets . Countries in the Euro zone are most
capable of doing this, but for the moment they are gripped by policymaking that is obsessed
with inflation and afraid of growth. China needs to improve its income distribution in a way that
links income distribution to productivity. Unions are the natural way to do this, but are blocked by China’s totalitarian
political system that fears such organization.
An alternative source of collapse is if American consumers reduce spending because they feel
overextended, the Fed raises interest rates too high or American banks tighten lending
standards. In this event, the US economy would stall and the dollar could fall owing to
diminished economic prospects in the US.
All three theories have merit, but in today’s economic environment the buyer-of-last-resort theory is especially
relevant. As long as other countries fail to generate sufficient demand in their own markets,
they will be compelled to rely on the US market and pay dollar tribute.
However, none are well served by this co-dependence. Other countries resent the special situation that exempts the US from trade-
deficit discipline. Side by side, the long-term economic prospects of the US are undermined by the erosion of the manufacturing
sector, while US
workers face wage and job pressures from imports that are advantaged by the
dollar’s overvaluation. Moreover, all are vulnerable to a sudden stop of the system resulting from
financial overextension of the US consumer.
AFF -- Thumpers
 BRICs
BRICS destroys dollar heg
Cog writer 3/1 (COG News. 1 March 2019. "‘BRICS Pay’ and the Coming End of US
Dollar Hegemony".www.cogwriter.com/news/prophecy/brics-pay-and-the-
coming-end-of-us-dollar-hegemony/)
BRICS countries want to create own payment system to cut dependence on West. The five major
emerging economies – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – are developing a joint new payment
system called BRICS Pay, the Russian media has reported. BRICS countries want to create a special online
wallet to integrate the payment systems of its five member states, Izvestia said on Friday citing the Russian
Direct Investment Fund (RDIF). Russia’s wealth fund is reportedly working on the project alongside its
partners from China and India, who have the necessary technologies to launch the system. The
service will be similar to existing Apple Pay and Samsung Pay, allowing users to pay with a smartphone app no matter what currency
the customer’s account is linked to. A special cloud platform is to be created to link BRICS countries’ national payment systems. The
pilot version of the payment system is to be tested in April in South Africa, who joined the bloc in December 2010, adding the last
“S” to the acronym. BRICS own payment system is to significantly reduce the dependence on
transnational payment organizations, which is especially important amid geopolitical tensions,
RDIF vice president told Izvestia. Meanwhile, the president of Russia’s Chamber of Commerce said that the integration of the
national payment systems is a top priority for the bloc given financial market volatility and the
dollar rate. This is yet another nail in the coffin for the US dollar.
 China Rise
Alt Cause – China rise causes dollar decline
Amadeo 6-25-19 (Kimberly Amadeo has 20 years senior-level corporate experience in
economic analysis and business strategy. She received an M.S. in Management from the Sloan
School of Business at M.I.T.Kimberly is the U.S. Economy expert for The Balance, and has been
writing for Dotdash/About.com since 2006. She covers economic and business news, and
explains how the economy affects you. https://www.thebalance.com/yuan-reserve-currency-to-
global-currency-3970465)
China wants its currency, the yuan, to replace the U.S. dollar as the world's global currency.
That would give it more control over its economy.
As China's economic might grows, it's taking steps to make that happen. A slim majority of institutional
investors see it as inevitable, but don't say when. Could we see a switch from a greenback to a redback-dominated world? If so, how
and when would that happen? What would be the consequences?
Before the yuan can become a global currency, it must first be successful as a reserve currency . That would give
China the following five benefits:
The yuanwould be used to price more international contracts . China exports a lot of commodities that are
traditionally priced in U.S. dollars. If
they were priced in yuan, China would not have to worry so much
about the dollar's value.
All central banks would have to hold yuan as part of their foreign exchange reserves. The yuan would be in higher demand. That
would lower interest rates for bonds denominated in yuan.
Chinese exporters would have lower borrowing costs.
China would have more economic clout in relation to the United States.
It would support President Jinping's economic reforms. (Source: "Why China Wants the Yuan to Be a Reserve
Currency," Bloomberg, March 23, 2015.)
On November 30, 2015, the International Monetary Fund awarded the yuan status as a reserve currency. The IMF added the yuan to
its Special Drawing Rights basket on October 1, 2016. This basket currently includes the euro, Japanese yen, British pound, and U.S.
dollar. 
Why did the IMF make this decision? China’s leaders want to improve the standard of living to avoid another revolution. The
People’s Bank of China kept the yuan at a fixed exchange rate to the dollar. That allowed China's economic growth to soar thanks to
low-cost exports to the United States. As a result, China's share of international trade and gross domestic product grew to around 10
percent.
As trade grew, so did the yuan's popularity. In August 2015, it became the fourth most-used
currency in the world. It rose from 13th place in just three years. It surpassed the Japanese yen, Canadian loonie, and the
Australian dollar.
Central banks should increase their foreign exchange reserves of yuan to provide funds for that level of trade. Central banks alone should purchase about $700 billion worth of
yuan. But banks never purchased all the euros they should have, even when the European Union was the world's largest economy. Most international transactions are still done
in U.S. dollars, even though its trade has dropped. 
The IMF requires China to liberalize its capital markets. It should allow the yuan to be freely traded on foreign exchange markets. That allows central banks to hold it as a reserve
currency. For that to happen, China's central bank must relax the yuan's peg to the dollar.
China must have clearer communications about its future actions regarding the yuan. That's what the Federal Reserve does at each of its eight Federal Open Market
Committee meetings.
On August 14, 2015, the PBOC relaxed the yuan to dollar conversion rate. Instead of a fixed exchange rate, it would set the yuan's value to its closing value on the previous day.
Instead of rising, as many expected, the yuan fell 3 percent over the next two days.
The PBOC stabilized the rate. It now has the freedom to allow the yuan to be a stronger tool in monetary policy. The drop also silenced critics of China's reforms, many of whom
were members of the U.S. Congress. They had warned that the yuan's value would rise as much as 30 percent or more. That would destroy China’s competitive advantage as an
exporter. 
On November 30, 2015, the PBOC informally communicated it will allow the yuan to depreciate between 3 percent and 5 percent in 2016. On December 11, 2015, the Bank
announced it would begin to shift the dollar peg to a basket of currencies. That basket includes the dollar, euro, yen, and 10 other currencies. 
Chinese leaders are beginning to make it easier to trade the yuan in foreign exchange markets. To do this risks more open financial and political systems. On March 23, 2015,
China backed the Renminbi Trading Hub for the Americas. The renminbi is another name for the yuan. That makes it easier for North American companies to conduct yuan
transactions in Canadian banks. China opened up similar trading hubs in Singapore and London. 
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is Chair of the Working Group on U.S. RMB Trading and Clearing group. It is creating a renminbi trading center in the United
States. The group includes former U.S. Treasury Secretaries Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner. Such a center would lower costs for U.S. companies trading with China. It would also
allow U.S. financial companies to offer yuan-denominated hedges and other derivatives.

On June 9, 2016, China granted the United States a quota of 250 billion yuan, the equivalent of
$38 billion, under China's Renminbi Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor program. It
appointed one Chinese and one U.S. bank to conduct RMB clearing business in the United
States. 
The level of trade is not the only reason the U .S. dollar is the world's reserve currency. The strength of the U.S. economy instills
trust. Most important are the transparency of U.S. financial markets and the stability of its monetary policy. 
On the other hand, Stuart Oakley, managing director of Nomura, pointed out in a 2013 article that China
owns $5 trillion of
unallocated central bank reserves and these could be in yuan. As more bilateral swap lines are
set up and China moves further down its path of capital market liberalization, central banks'
appetite to own this currency will grow.
Could China's ambition to make the yuan the world's currency lead to a dollar collapse ?
Probably not. Instead, it will be a long, slow process that results in a  dollar decline, not a collapse. 

China has already started—the impact is inevitable

Watts 4-17 4/17/19, William Watts || William Watts is MarketWatch’s senior markets writer. Based in New York, Watts
writes about stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities, including oil. He also writes about global macro issues and trading
strategies. || US dollar edges lower after stronger-than-expected China GDP data, Market Watch ||
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-dollar-edges-lower-after-stronger-than-expected-china-gdp-data-2019-04-17
The U.S. dollar was off slightly versus its biggest rivals Wednesday after data showed the pace of
Chinese economic growth steadied in the first quarter, helping to soothe fears of a global economic slowdown.
The ICE U.S. Dollar Index DXY, +0.01% a measure of the currency against six major rivals, was off 0.1% at 96.918. The U.S. unit traded
at 111.99 Japanese yen USDJPY, -0.11% down marginally from its level late Tuesday in New York trading at ¥112.02. The euro
EURUSD, -0.0090% fetched $1.1308, up from $1.1283.
China’s economy grew 6.4% year over year in the first three months of 2019, according to
government data, matching the pace of growth in the final quarter of 2018 and coming in
slightly above expectations for an expansion of 6.3%.
The data was seen tentatively soothing worries that troubles for the world’s second-largest economy would contribute to a global
slowdown. As a result, currencies viewed as bets on improving global economic growth gained ground.
“It was risk-on overnight as headline Chinese data were strong across the board,” said Sue Trinh, head of Asia emerging market FX
strategy at RBC, in a note.
She cautioned, however, that upbeat data showing faster retail sales growth and falling unemployment don’t square with other
evidence on factory shutdowns, falling auto sales and a sharp slowdown in import growth.
The Australian dollar AUDUSD, -0.2427% was a big gainer in the wake of the China data, jumping to a more-than-two-month high
versus its U.S. counterpart to trade as high as 72.08 U.S. cents. It remains up 0.3% at 71.92 cents.
The Aussie, meanwhile, soared versus its antipodean rival, the New Zealand dollar AUDNZD, -0.2297% after a weaker-than-expected
first-quarter inflation reading (1.5% versus 1.7% expected) stoked expectations for a rate cut by New Zealand’s central bank. The
Australian currency remained up 0.8% versus the currency known as the kiwi at NZ$1.0685 after trading at its highest level of 2019
at NZ$1.0737, according to FactSet.
“The big drop in NZD despite the better-than-expected China data shows, first off, the dominance of domestic factors versus
external ones, plus Australia’s greater interdependence with China: China takes 39% of Australia’s exports vs 27% of New Zealand’s
(32% of total trade versus 23%),” wrote Marshall Gittler, chief strategist at ACLS Global, in a note.
Consumer prices rose 1.9% in the year through February, compared with an annual gain of 1.8% the previous 12 months, the Office
for National Statistics said Wednesday.

Use of yuan in Britain proves Chinese rise is inevitable and starting already
Foss '19 (1/10/19, Paul-Martin Foss || Paul-Martin Foss is the founder, President, and Executive Director of the Carl Menger
Center for the Study of Money and Banking, a think tank dedicated to educating the American people on the importance of sound
money and sound banking || Bank of England Shocker: Chinese Yuan to Replace US Dollar as World Reserve Currency, GoldCo ||
https://goldco.com/bank-england-shocker-chinese-yuan-replace-us-dollar-world-reserve-currency/)
We’ve been saying for years that the US dollar will eventually be replaced as the world’s reserve currency. But it’s only now
that world financial authorities are admitting the obvious.
With the dollar having lost 85% of its value since the gold window was closed in 1971, it continues to lose purchasing power year
after year as the Federal Reserve continues to create trillions of dollars worth of new money. While the Fed remains adamant that
the dollar won’t be supplanted, the Bank of England disagrees.
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney was remarkably frank about the dollar’s demise in a
recent AMA-style forum on the Bank of England’s website. In his view the dollar will eventually
be supplanted by the Chinese yuan.
Among the reasons Carney cited for his stance are:
Emerging market economies (including China) make up 60% of the global economy;
The US only has a 10% share of international trade;
That lag between global trade and economic importance and reserve currency status will eventually be overcome.
Carney noted that even though the US overtook Britain in the late 19th century as the world’s largest, it still took until the 1920s
With China nipping at the US economy’s
before the dollar became a dominant currency in international trade.
heels, it may only be a few years before China’s economy surpasses the US in size. From there
it’s only a matter of time before the yuan completely replaces the dollar.
With Russia, India, and other countries increasingly adopting the yuan in international trade, the
dollar is being sidelined. That’s bad news for American investors who hold dollar-denominated stocks and bonds. When the
dollar loses its reserve status the value of those investments will plunge. Thankfully there’s a way for investors to protect themselves
once that happens: investing in gold.
With the Bank of England now understanding that the dollar will be supplanted as the world’s reserve currency, will the Fed step up
and take responsibility or will it throw ordinary investors under the bus? Given the decreasing purchasing power of the dollar over
the past 50 years and the dramatic increase in the value of gold, we’ll bet on the latter.

China rise is well on it’s way—nothing can stop it

Hsu ‘18 4/5/18, Sara Hsu || 4/5/19, Sara Hsu || Hsu is an Associate Professor of Economics at the State University of New York
at New Paltz, and has published over six books and fifteen journal articles on the Chinese economy and financial sector. || The
Almighty Dollar: Is US Dominance In The Oil Trade Waning As China Begins Using RMB For Payment?, Forbes ||
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsu/2018/04/05/the-almighty-dollar-is-us-dominance-in-the-oil-trade-waning-as-china-begins-
using-rmb-for-payment/#22259527bc87
In a challenge to longstanding American dominance of the oil industry, China is reportedly planning to launch a pilot
program to pay for oil in its own RMB, potentially starting in the second half of this year. Regulators
have asked several financial institutions to prepare to price oil imports in RMB. Two of China’s top suppliers, Russia
and Angola, may be asked to trade in RMB, and China recently began trading oil futures in its
own currency.
China surpassed the U.S. as top oil importer last year, importing 8.4 million barrels per day versus U.S. imports of 7.9 barrels per day.
Due to its status as a major market for crude oil, China launched RMB crude futures on March
26. The new futures market received a warm welcome, with a 20 million barrel turnover by the
market close on the first day. What does this mean, then, for China’s potential to use the RMB in oil import payments,
and will this mark the beginning of the end for dollar dominance in the oil trade?
Potential of using RMB payments
Some say yes, some say no. There is some demand for an end to the U.S. monopoly over the oil trade . Countries like Russia
and Angola favor ending dollar dominance in the global oil industry, as this has helped the United States to
maintain a global economic hegemony and exert its political and economic influence. Nations that wish to reduce exposure to U.S.
political risk (including the politics of sanctions) may be eager to reduce the importance of the U.S. dollar in world trade in favor of
stable alternative trading currencies. If a number of oil-rich nations take up China’s would-be RMB-denominated oil trade, the
centrality of the dollar in the oil trade will be diminished.
However, other analysts have made the case that, due to restrictions on China’s capital account and the daily fixed level of the RMB,
the potential for extensive commodities trading in RMB is less attractive than other options available to foreign investors. Another
reason trading in RMB may be less desirable is because the government often intervenes in markets when instability is perceived.
These factors have generated wariness among would-be foreign traders, who like to trade in liquid and predictable markets.
Will this end dollar dominance in oil trade?
Countries like China and Russia wish to reduce their dependence on the dollar, and this appears to be a strategic goal. Increased
use of the RMB in oil trading settlements will likely challenge the supremacy of the dollar , but
this will take time because the dollar is so entrenched around the world. The dollar is used not only for commodities trading, but
also as a key marker in exchange rate regimes and as an essential reserve currency. This convention has been in use since the
Bretton Woods meeting after World War II, when the rest of the world (outside of the U.S.) was coping with economic and monetary
instability.
At present, the dollar comprises about 64% of world reserve currencies (with the next largest being the euro at 20%). One-third of
global GDP is generated by countries that fix their currencies to the dollar and 85% of foreign exchange trading involves the U.S.
dollar. By contrast, the RMB comprises about 1% of global reserves. Despite recent turmoil in the U.S. stock markets due to political
volatility, the U.S. is still considered the strongest economy in the world. While that doesn’t mean that its hegemonic status will last
forever, China will have to prove to the world that it is not only politically and economically strong,
but that it is stable and profitable. When that time comes, China will be able to increase the role
of the RMB in the oil trade.
Despite the forces against the RMB as a global currency, it does have the potential to replace the dollar in the
oil trade over time. This may take decades, however, and is contingent on the economic decline of the U.S. and continued
growth and liberalization in China. In that case, the RMB will be more widely used, and, specifically in the oil trade, may be used not
only for Chinese imports of oil but for the oil trade amongst other nations that are interested in building up RMB reserves.
I see it as entirely possible. Undoubtedly, the U.K. could
This time may never come, but, as a scholar of economic history,
That China has RMB
not have predicted that America would overtake it as global hegemon after World War II.
internationalization as a long-term objective makes the rise of the yuan all the more plausible; it
is in the crosshairs.
 Euro
Rising Euro heg thumps
Kalkine 6/25. Team Kalkine, Kalkine Media. 25 June 2019. "Europe And China
Colluding to Challenge The US Dollar Hegemony".
https://kalkinemedia.com/2019/06/25/europe-and-china-colluding-to-challenge-
the-us-dollar-hegemony/
Europe hopes to rival US dollar as second global currency. Last year in September 2018, the 19-member
European Commission presented ideas to strengthen Euro’s role as an international currency .
According to the Commission, the efforts and initiatives in this regard would provide protection to its citizens and businesses and
promote interests in formulating global affairs based on multilateralism and cooperation amongst different governments. Source:
European Commission It
is also believed that having more than one international currency would
reduce the susceptibility of economies across the world to disruptions and shocks linked to the
strong reliance of many sectors on a single currency. In recent months, Washington has flexed its
muscle by using the global role of the dollar to impose powerful sanctions on companies doing
business with Iran. With the so called extra-territorial impositions by the US, the European
companies find it difficult to sustain trade ties with other countries, specifically Iran, and a
significant portion of Iran’s international trade is billed in US dollars . Thus, European Union seeks to
safeguard its interest and reflect its political, economic and financial weight.
 NOPEC
Anti – OPEC bill thumps
DiChristopher 4/5 (Tom DiChristopher, award winning multimedia journalist who
covers energy, graduated from CUNY graduate school of journalism. 5 April 2019.
"Saudi Arabia is reportedly mulling ‘nuclear option’ of stripping the US dollar
from oil trade". CNBC.https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/saudi-arabia-is-
reportedly-mulls-stripping-us-dollar-from-oil-trade.html)
The U.S. dollar is the dominant currency in oil trading , but Saudi Arabia is reportedly considering
selling its crude in other currencies if American lawmakers pass an anti-OPEC bill . The discussions,
reported by Reuters, suggest that Riyadh is preparing a strategy to deal with potential passage of the No
Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act , known as NOPEC. The legislation is widely viewed as a longshot, which
means the Saudi move to marginalize the dollar is unlikely to come to pass. Still, the kingdom has discussed the
proposal with other OPEC members, two sources told Reuters. Another source said Riyadh has broached the subject
with U.S. energy officials. If the Saudis followed through, it would chip away at U.S. influence over global financial markets and
Washington’s ability to enforce sanctions on foreign entities. Efforts to diminish the greenback’s role in oil trading have been fairly
limited to date, but the Saudi plan would lend significant momentum to those efforts — and represent a coup for countries like
Russia and China. Saudi
Arabia is the world’s largest oil exporter , and its total crude output is
surpassed only by U.S. and Russian production. It pumps enough oil to meet about 10 percent of
global demand, while OPEC fulfills about a third of global consumption. “The Saudis know they
have the dollar as the nuclear option ,” one of the sources told Reuters. The Saudi embassy in Washington did not
immediately return CNBC’s request for comment. The Saudi energy ministry and U.S. Department of Energy did not respond to
Reuters. The State Department told Reuters it does not comment on pending legislation. The
NOPEC legislation would
amend existing U.S. law, allowing the Justice Department to sue foreign countries for working
together to limit oil supplies and influence prices. That represents an existential threat to OPEC .
The 14-nation producer group regulates global oil supply by setting output limits for each member during times of oversupply.
Capping output pushes up the cost of crude. Since OPEC nations depend on oil revenues to balance their budgets, the line between
balancing the market and filling domestic coffers has always been blurry. OPEC and a group of non-member allies
led by Russia are currently trying to keep 1.2 million barrels a day off the market through the
first half of 2018. While some stakeholders — including many U.S. drillers — believe OPEC is essential to keeping supply and
demand in balance, others say the group inflates prices to enrich its members at the expense of oil consumers. That latter view
is popular with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, who want to keep energy prices
low for their constituents. “For decades, Saudi Arabia has benefited from trading its vast supplies of
cheap oil on an unfree market dominated by the OPEC cartel —at American expense,” said Robbie
Diamond, president and CEO of Securing America’s Future Energy, a think tank that advocates for reducing U.S. dependence on oil.
“This report, if true, would only further prove that Saudi Arabia is willing to go to extreme lengths to protect its unfair advantage in
the global oil market,” Diamond said in a statement.
 Free Trade
The greatest risk to the US dollar comes from within – lack of free-trade
destroys dollar heg
Lloyd 6/4 (Colin Lloyd, macroeconomic commentar, writer and presenter,
contributer to several free market publications. 4 June 2019. "U.S. Dollar
Supremacy Could Quickly Fade". American Institute for Economic
Research.https://www.aier.org/article/us-dollar-supremacy-could-quickly-fade)
Growing bilateral trade in other currencies. The Chinese Yuan has been closely pegged to the US
dollar for several years. This has allowed Chinese goods to be sold at relatively stable prices. The rise of the Euro
has tilted the balance away from the US dollar. China, Russia, India and Brazil have made it clear
that they would prefer to transact mutual trade and investment in their own currencies. China has
introduced a Yuan denominated oil futures contract which has captured 7% of global volume. Since 2014 international access to
stocks traded via the stock connect between Hong Kong and Shanghai has opened the Chinese market to additional foreign capital.
The Shenzen stock exchange followed in 2016. Even developed nations, including the UK, France and Germany, have been spurred
on (in particular, by the US imposition of sanctions against Iran, which they did not support) to fine tune their non-dollar payments
processes. How Rapidly Could the Dollar Decline? There is still a long way to go. Prior to its launch in 1999 the currencies which now
comprise the Euro accounted for around 18% of global reserves; those reserves rose marginally until 2003. Today combined Euro
reserves are just over 20%. This chart shows the waxing and waning of US reserves between 1965 and 2018. The recent low-point
was 46% in 1991, this was a response to the original collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement. Interestingly the rebound began with
The greatest risk to the US dollar may, in fact, come from within. The
the outbreak of the Gulf War:
imposition of tariffs and sanctions create an opportunity for other countries to engage in
bilateral trade. The decision to withdraw from the free trade initiatives such as the TPP and T-TIP
weakens not only the prospects for US trade but also the preeminent position of the US dollar. In
her 1994 book - When China Ruled the Seas – Louise Levathes recounts the journeys of the largest fleet of treasure ships ever
witnessed at that time 1405-1433. After the death of the Yongle Emperor in 1424, China turned inward, spurred on by civil unrest
due to a series of bad harvests. China’s xenophobic decision , that the rest of the world had nothing to
offer, created an opportunity for Venice. The Italian Renaissance and the course of the new world order can be
charted from this point. Markets abhor a vacuum. If the US turns its back on the world, the world will find a
way to fill the void. The exorbitant privilege of being the reserve currency has undeniable benefits but, as Bastiat would have
put it, that is what is seen, what is unseen is the condition for maintaining it: engagement in free-trade with the rest
of the world.
 Relations
China Russia relations guarantee dollar heg collapses anyways
Mok 7/1 (Andy Mok is a research fellow at center for china and globalization. 01
July 2019. "Why has the clock started ticking on the U.S. dollar deathwatch?".
CGTN.https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-07-01/Why-has-the-clock-started-
ticking-on-the-U-S-dollar-deathwatch--HXc5WwRLWw/index.html
The foundation of American hegemony might appear to rest on its military. But, in fact, the true source of
American power is based on its currency: The U.S. dollar. For dollar hegemony allows the U.S. to
borrow unlimited amounts of money from the rest of the world. Ending this dominance would cut off
credit to the United States and place the cost of American defense spending, and
other major government programs squarely on the shoulders of the American
voter. This would likely lead to a drastic reprioritization of government spending priorities. There are four
interlocking pieces to this monetary hegemony: (1) The ability to force other countries and companies
around the world to denominate their trade in dollars, (2) controlling access to the global payments system, (3) the primacy of the
These are all
dollar as a global reserve currency and, perhaps most important, (4) the nature of the dollar as a fiat currency.
currently under threat. And in a world where changes occurs at faster and faster rates,
the demise of the dollar may play out not in decades, as many assume, but perhaps over just a
few short years. Recent developments suggest that this process is well under way. The
dollar as a unit of account. By forcing other to price goods and services in dollars, the U.S. creates demand for its currency. This
because the dollar is a fiat
requires buyers to find ways to earn dollars to pay for their purchases. However,
currency (more on this below), the U.S. can create dollars literally out of thin air without
providing anything of value in exchange for a new batch (or boatload) of dollars. As
American economist Barry Eichengreen noted "It costs only a few cents for the Bureau of Engraving
and Printing to produce a 100 dollars' bill, but other countries had to pony up 100
dollars' of actual goods in order to obtain one." This part of dollar hegemony was cemented into place
in the 1970s when Saudi Arabia agreed to price oil in dollars in exchange for American military protection (and use those dollars to
recent developments including the launch of
purchase U.S. government securities). However,
Shanghai oil futures, which are denominated in Renminbi (RMB), offer an
alternative. China is already the world's top importer of oil. With the recent
upgrading of China-Russia relations which includes trade in oil priced in RMB, the
emergence of another currency as a global unit of account has been firmly
established. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (C) announces a record 8.9 billion U.S. dollars' fine against the French bank
BNP Paribas for violating international sanctions during a press conference at the U.S. Justice Department in Washington, U.S., June
30, 2014. Control of the global payment system.

Hostile global relations create a desire for an alternative payment system

Mok 7/1 (Andy Mok isa research fellow at center for china and globalization. 01
July 2019. "Why has the clock started ticking on the U.S. dollar deathwatch?".
CGTN.https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-07-01/Why-has-the-clock-started-
ticking-on-the-U-S-dollar-deathwatch--HXc5WwRLWw/index.html
The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Communications (SWIFT) financial messaging service is the primary means to transfer
money globally. Based in Belgium, the member-owned cooperative connects more than 11,000 banks, financial institutions and
corporations in more than 200 countries and territories around the world. It serves as the central nervous system of global finance.
So, if a country's banks are cut off from SWIFT it cannot pay for imports or receive payments for exports. But while SWIFT might look
like an independent multi-national organization, appearances can be deceiving.In fact, the U.S. through threats
of sanctions against SWIFT's board of directors can force it to disconnect those
who displease Washington and it is in fact a crucial tool for maintaining American
dollar hegemony. However, on June 28, France, Germany and the UK announced that an
alternative payment system called Instex became operational. This payment balancing
system permits companies in Europe to buy Iranian goods, and vice-versa, without accessing SWIFT. Given the growing
number of countries which the U.S. has threatened with economic aggression
including China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela and others, the desire for an alternative
payment system is undeniable. The U.S. Treasury Department's undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial
Intelligence, Sigal Mandelker, warned Instex President Per Fischer, in a May letter, "I urge you to carefully consider the potential
sanctions exposure of Instex. Engaging in activities that run afoul of U.S. sanctions can result in severe consequences, including a loss
of access to the U.S. financial system." However the timing of the June 28 announcement may signal that a big enough coalition of
countries exists to counter or deter American threats against Instex. Moreover, its backers may believe that retaliation by the U.S.
will spur even faster adoption of an alternative to SWIFT. A Pakistani currency dealer counts Chinese currency for his customer at his
shop in Quetta, January 3, 2018. /VCG Photo. The dollar two-step: A fiat currency becomes the global reserve currency. Before
August 13, 1971 the U.S. dollar was backed by gold-meaning that a dollar could be converted into a certain amount of gold, a
physical commodity with real value. However on that fateful day, President Nixon declared that dollars could no longer be
exchanged for gold or any other reserve asset and turned the dollar in fiat money (meaning a currency with no intrinsic value). But
to sustain global demand for the dollar, the U.S. also reached an agreement in the 1970s whereby Saudi Arabia would only accept
payment for oil in dollars irrespective of whom or where the buyer was. With oil being the world's most valuable commodity, this
ensured that countries everywhere would need to secure dollars to both settle oil purchases and hedge against oil price changes and
to manage the value of their own currencies. As noted above, this allowed the U.S. to enforce the dollar as a global unit of account.
Combined with the ability to print money, this provided the fuel for unlimited spending and American hegemony. Launched in 2018,
Shanghai oil futures are not only priced in RMB but can also be converted into gold. A currency backed by a valuable physical
commodity may have much great appeal than one without intrinsic value like the dollar. Not surprisingly, trading volume for these
futures has exploded. Moreover, more and more central banks are increasing their holdings of gold instead of dollars, which is
reducing the importance of the dollar as a global reserve currency. Countdown to the demise of dollar hegemony. Both those the
Iran, and Russia as well as ostensible allies like France,
U.S. deems adversaries such as
Germany and the UK have increasingly compelling and urgent reasons to
circumvent dollar hegemony. While appearing unassailable, the dollar may be much more
vulnerable than many suspects. The reporting by some well-known western business media outlets only
reinforces these erroneous perceptions since those doing the reporting seem to not have a sufficient grasp of the underlying
accounting and economic principles underpinning dollar hegemony. Events described above demonstrate that the
countdown to the demise of dollar hegemony has begun. Given the accelerating pace of
technological, social and political change, its end may be arrives sooner than expected.
 Trump
Trump thumps dollar heg
Hedges 2/4 (Chris Hedges a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, a New York Times best-selling
author, a professor in the college degree program offered to New Jersey state prisoners by
Rutgers University. 04 February 2019. "Goodbye to the Dollar". Truth
Dig.https://www.truthdig.com/articles/goodbye-to-the-dollar/
The inept and corrupt presidency of Donald Trump has unwittingly triggered the fatal blow to
the American empire—the abandonment of the dollar as the world’s principal reserve currency.
Nations around the globe, especially in Europe, have lost confidence in the United States to act
rationally, much less lead, in issues of international finance, trade, diplomacy and war. These nations
are quietly dismantling the seven-decade-old alliance with the United States and building alternative
systems of bilateral trade. This reconfiguring of the world’s financial system will be fatal to the
American empire, as the historian Alfred McCoy and the economist Michael Hudson have long pointed out. It will trigger
an economic death spiral, including high inflation, which will necessitate a massive military
contraction overseas and plunge the United States into a prolonged depression. Trump, rather
than make America great again, has turned out, unwittingly, to be the empire’s most aggressive
gravedigger.

Trump thumps – Saudi Arabia already doesn’t like us and will sell the
petrodollar
Giambruno ND (Nick Giambruno, He’s also the Chief Analyst of Casey Research’s
flagship advisory, "Donald Trump, Saudi Arabia, and the Petrodollar", ND
https://internationalman.com/articles/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-and-the-petrodollar/)
Besides Hillary Clinton, the single biggest loser from the US presidential election was
Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis did not want Donald Trump in the White House . And not because of some bad blood on
Twitter. There are real geopolitical issues at stake.
At the moment, Trump seems determined to walk back on US support for the so-called “moderate” rebels in Syria.
The Saudis are furious with the US for not holding up its part of the petrodollar deal. They
think the US should have already attacked Syria as part of its commitment to keep the
region safe for the monarchy.
Toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a longstanding Saudi goal. But a President Trump makes that unlikely.
That’s not good for Saudi Arabia’s position in the Middle East, nor its relationship with the
US.
This is just one of the ways President Trump will hasten the death of the petrodollar.
AFF - Links
No Replacements
 False Reports
US dollar will not be replaced
Memo 19 (The Middle East Monitor (MEMO) is a not-for-profit[1] press monitoring
organisation, founded on 1 July 2009.[2] MEMO is largely focused on the Israeli–Palestinian
conflict, but writes about other issues in the Middle East as well. It has a Spanish edition.[3] It
has been characterized as a pro-Hamas publication by the BBC.[4], “Saudi Arabia denies plans to
ditch dollar in oil sale deals”, 4/9/2019 https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190409-saudi-
arabia-denies-plans-to-ditch-dollar-in-oil-sale-deals/)
Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, yesterday denied media reports claiming the kingdom
intends to sell its oil in currencies other than the US dollar. The Saudi Energy Ministry
described the reports as “inaccurate”. “The kingdom has been trading its oil in dollars for decades
which has served well the objectives of its financial and monetary policies,” the ministry said. The
ministry affirmed the kingdom’s commitment to its role as a stabilising force in the energy
markets, and “its desire not to risk such a key policy through a fundamental change to the
financial terms of oil trading relationships around the world”. Earlier in the day, Saudi Energy Minister
Khalid Al-Falih confirmed that the US dollar remains the approved currency for the country’s
crude oil tradings.

Saudi Arabia won’t drop the petrodollar

New China 19 (New China is a news agency in Xinhua, "Saudi Arabia denies plans to ditch
petrodollar system", 4/8/19, www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-04/08/c_137960608.htm)
RIYADH, April 8 (Xinhua) -- Saudi Arabia on Monday denied reports that the kingdom plans to
sell its oil in currencies other than the U.S. dollar , Saudi Press Agency (SPA) reported.
The reports that Saudi Arabia is threatening to sell its oil in currencies other than the dollar are
inaccurate and do not reflect the kingdom's position on this matter, said the Ministry of Energy,
Industry and Mineral Resources.
Saudi Arabia has been trading its oil in dollar for decades which has served well the goals of its
financial and monetary policies, it added.
The ministry also reaffirmed Saudi Arabia's commitment to its role as a stabilizing force of energy markets.
No Retal
 Generic
Leader of S.A. won’t swap US dollar
Arab News 19 (Arab News is an English-language daily newspaper published in Saudi Arabia.
It is published from Riyadh. The target audiences of the paper which is published in broadsheet
are businessmen, executives and diplomats.[4][5], “Saudi Arabia not considering non-dollar oil
trade: official”, 4/8/2019, http://www.arabnews.com/node/1479426/business-economy)
The reaction from the ministry - headed by energy minister Khalid Al-Falih who is also the
chairman of the world’s biggest oil company Saudi Aramco - will put and end to speculation
that the Kingdom intends to react radically to the possible passage of what has been called
“NOPEC” laws in the US.

S.A officially denied their plan to change in trading in US dollar

Financial Time 19 (The Financial Times (FT) is an English-language international daily
newspaper owned by Japanese company Nikkei Inc, headquartered in London, with a special
emphasis on business and economic news. “Saudi Arabia: no change to policy of selling oil in
dollars”, 4/8/2019, https://www.ft.com/content/db98ce42-59e5-11e9-939a-341f5ada9d40)
Saudi Arabia said it has no plans to change its longstanding policy of trading oil in US dollars.
The denial on Monday came after reports that the kingdom is threatening to sell its oil in currencies
other than the dollar if the US Congress passes legislation exposing Opec to American antitrust laws. Saudi Arabia and the
US are close allies.

Saudis won’t switch

Energy 19(Energy is an oil company in the Saudi Arabian peninsula that contributes to most of
the kingdom’s oil exports, “Saudi Arabia to continue with U.S. dollar in oil trade”, 4/9/2019,
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/oil/saudi-arabia-to-continue-with-us-dollar-in-oil-
trade/25079#)
analysts say that the dollar’s dominion is unlikely to be challenged just yet. Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-
Falih said on Monday there was no change to the kingdom's long-standing policy of trading oil in US
dollars. "Absolutely not. There is no change whatsoever to our long-standing policy," Falih said when
asked to comment on the possibility that Saudi Arabia could ditch the dollar.
 Everyone Loses
Swapping US dollar disrupt oil trade and harms the S.A.
CNBC 19 (CNBC is an American pay television business news channel that is owned by
NBCUniversal Broadcast, Cable, Sports and News, a division of NBCUniversal, “Saudi Arabia
denies it threatened to strip the US dollar from oil trading”, 4/8/2019,
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/saudi-arabia-denies-it-threatened-to-strip-us-dollar-from-
oil-trading.html)
The ministry says the report is inaccurate and does “not reflect Saudi Arabia’s position on this
matter.” The Saudis suggest that pushing a major change to oil trading could disrupt its goal of
stabilizing energy markets. Most crude oil is traded in U.S. dollars, and selling crude in other
currencies could chip away at the greenback’s dominant role in the international financial
system.

The petrodollar collapse is in no ones interest

Adams 16 Cecil adams is a writer for the Washington city paper. "Is The Petrodollar About To Tank The Economy?"
https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/columns/straight-dope/article/13047527/is-the-petrodollar-about-to-tank-the-economy-a-
calmer
How many gallons of water should you stock in the emergency cellar? Will three AR-15s suffice, or does the well-equipped arsenal really demand
four? If these be your concerns, Kingsley, you’ll find a fantastic resource in the Internet, the petrodollar and the havoc that’ll result from its
impending collapse being an extremely popular topic among the black-helicopter set. You can’t go wrong with freeze-dried peas, I hear. A calmer
petrodollars is international oil
assessment reveals a more prosaic concept. What we talk about when we talk about

sales as transacted in U.S. dollars —which is to say, oil sales: the dollar has long been the standard currency for all such
dealings. The primary world reserve currency, meanwhile, is the very same dollar—full stop. The origins of this arrangement hark back to Bretton Woods, the 1944 confab of Allied nations where it was
decided that the dollar would be the world’s backup buck, backed itself by gold at a fixed rate of $35 per ounce. International spending, though—and it was a spendy era, what with the rebuilding of
Europe, the Great Society, the Vietnam War, etc—promptly grew to dwarf the Fort Knox reserves, which at one point held only a third of the gold needed to cover the dollars in foreign circulation,
prompting fears of a run on the place. In 1971 President Richard Nixon suspended the direct convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold, bringing about a system of floating, rather than fixed, exchange
rates. Among other things this move, the so-called Nixon Shock, increased the ability of the Federal Reserve to influence monetary policy, which in turn, decades later, led yahoos like Ron Paul and Ted
Cruz to pine for a return to the gold standard. (Most economists continue to see this as a pretty bad idea.) But the key development of the era, for our purposes, was a deal where, in exchange for U.S.
military support and other preferential treatment, the Saudis agreed to conduct oil transactions in dollars only. Soon OPEC as a whole signed on. As prices shot up in the ’70s, oil-exporting countries in
the Middle East found themselves with more dollars than they knew what to do with; they placed them in U.S. and British banks, which in turn used the dollars to make loans to developing countries that
needed the money to . . . import oil, the resulting relationship of indebtedness a boon to U.S. global hegemony. Sound a bit Kissingerian? Well, the whole thing was Henry’s baby: he called the scheme
“recycling petrodollars.” (“Petrodollars” as opposed to, say, “dollars” because they don’t circulate in the U.S.; economists thought it’d be useful to make the distinction.) Conveniently, the Saudis also
used their petrodollar surpluses to buy munitions from American arms manufacturers, who, with Vietnam winding down, were grateful for the business. All around, a shining example of U.S. foreign
policy: we enrich ourselves and impoverish the developing world while selling weapons to jerks. Doffing your tinfoil hat, then, you come to see the petrodollar bathed in the glow of ’70s and ’80s
nostalgia, like disco and Oliver North. What relevance does it have nowadays? Well, to hear the, er, more concerned parties tell it, if the oil-producing countries decide to stop using the dollar for oil
transactions—switching to, say, the euro—it’ll send the world economy into a tailspin. There has been a little attrition, most notably in 2000 when the United Nations’ “oil for food” program gave Iraq
permission to sell its oil for euros; hardcore skeptics cite this threat to the rule of the petrodollar as a contributing factor in the U.S. invasion. Since then Iran has switched to conducting its oil

Gazprom Neft, Russia’s third-largest oil producer, began selling oil to China in exchange for renminbi. But an
transactions in euros, and recently

abrupt abandonment of the petrodollar system is in nobody’s best interest : since most
major nations continue to back their own currency with the U.S. dollar, everybody’s
got some skin in the game vis-à-vis keeping that currency stable. That’s not to say the
petrodollar regime isn’t a bit sensitive these days , but it’s for another reason: fracking.
Environmental implications aside, hydraulic fracturing (discussed here in 2013) has put major shale oil reserves in play and (for now, at least)
upended the world energy market. In 2011, for instance, the U.S. imported about $360 billion worth of oil; by 2015, that number had dropped to
$120 billion. One estimate last year pegged OPEC’s 2015 profits at $350 billion lower than those in 2014—the largest year-over-year drop ever. Oil
gazillionaires who spent the commodity-boom aughts buying up Manhattan penthouses are now rapidly burning through their petrodollar savings;
if the trend continues, Bloomberg suggested, demand will fall for “everything from European government debt to U.S. real estate.” Not nothing, in
other words, but neither is it global collapse.
Arm Sales Not Key
 Generic
Arms sales are not key -- tariffs and trade wars are
Hatfield 18 (Matthew Hatfield, Journalist at Harvard Political Review, "The Worrisome Deal:
China and Saudi Arabia", 12/18/18, https://harvardpolitics.com/world/the-worrisome-deal-
china-and-saudi-arabia/)
The prospective decline of American power through the destabilization of the petrodollar could disrupt a balance of power that has
ensured relative world peace since the Cold War. A
weak US economy would leave the nation with a weaker
and drive a new dual-hegemony between Russia and China , who signed an Eurasian Economic Cooperation
pact on May 17th in Astana. As Russia continues to “heat” Europe through its natural gas reserves ,
which are not sold via the dollar, taking global energy off the dollar – by taking it off of oil
altogether – is a future possibility .
In the last few months, the United States’ reaction to the Chinese-Saudi Arabia negotiations have been rather quiet with little report
to no media attention . With President Trump’s continued rhetoric and talk ,
it is clear that tariffs and a trade war will
be of continual focus, at least much more relative to the possible attack at the petrodollar , and indirectly, at
inflation in the United States