The International Extemp final round has just concluded. Here is Extemp Central’s analysis of the final round. Extemp Central provides a quick breakdown of the speeches and ranks the round. A video will be posted this afternoon where more detail will be provided on the rounds and why they were ranked as such. Awards will take place tonight and when the results are made official, we will bring them to you here at Extemp Central.
Speaker 1 (303-Ashesh Rambachan)
Question: In an inevitable multipolar economic future, does U.S. hard power matter?
Answer: Yes
AGD: President Obama Provides Some Wishes
Bgd./Sig: (N/A)
I. Protects Global Trade
How to Run the World-70% of all global trade on the seas
Zakaria-Freedom of seas allows emerging markets to free load on U.S. power
WQ Summer-No other econ power can protect trade like U.S.
-Somalia’s seas protected by the U.S.
II. Strengthens U.S. Alliances
Soft Power-Maintaining alliances across the globe important to maintain U.S. global power and hard power does this
Second World-U.S. provides security umbrella in Asia and Europe and reliance on U.S. will increase
Hoover Institute 6/1-As China rises, more American allies in Asia worried about security
FA May/June-Russia fears leads Europeans to look at the U.S., ditto Iran in the Middle East
III. Counters Global Security
World is Flat-Interdependence will decrease conflict between states, but only states
How to Run the World-Terrorists empowered by globalization and U.S. hard power can best fight security challenges
Center for U.S. Progress 5/1-Only reason U.S. killed bin Laden was U.S. hard power
ME Quarterly Winter 2010-Irreplaceable force against non-state actors
CX: Ashesh gets pressed on the U.S. being accused of using too much hard power to get its way and how it angers other nations, but he defends his stance by pointing out that while countries do not like the U.S., they know that they need its hard power to protect their sovereignty and security. I was not a fan of the questioner regretting that he had to ask some “obligatory questions.”
Summary: Funny AGD, but it has little immediate relevance to the topic. I would have liked more background on the multipolar economic future part of the question. A clarification of the global economic status quo was missing in the background as well. Really interesting first point and nice use of non-conventional sources and nice use of Somalia. Ashesh does a really awesome job using examples to back up his analysis. I would have liked more links to economics on point three. It lacks the same specificity that the previous two points had.
————————
Speaker 2 (113-Grace Pyo)
Question: Will China’s ascent increase the probability of great power war?
Answer: Yes
AGD: Xiaoping quotation
Bgd./Sig: (N/A)
I. Increasing Militarization
UK Telegraph 12/19-For last five years, China has increased nuclear capabilities by 25%
CSM 2/17-U.S. sold $6 billion arms package to Taiwan and China broke off military ties with U.S.
II. Increased Aggression
CSM 6/3-Philippines and Vietnam complained that China patrolling South China Sea
CSM 5/31-War planes were cited over South China Sea
NYT 4/4-China has 40k working in Surinam, 10% of the population
III. Entangling Alliances
CSM 2/28-SK war games
FA-U.S. has long standing military commitment to JPN and SK
CX: Interestingly enough, Ashesh is able to use some of his interdependence arguments against Grace’s stance in this speech. Ashesh strikes some blows with this argument, but Grace maintains composure and beats it back by focusing on the importance of Taiwan.
Summary: I wonder if Jared Odessky was watching this speech, since he had a question similar to this an hour earlier. Nice use of a quotation that is relevant to start the speech. I know I’m a guy, but I’m not a fan of the “I’m a girl in extemp finals” comment, especially since there was one in the USX final an hour earlier. We need more background on China’s ascent in the background. The first point was pretty short as she’s speaking a little too quickly and it’s causing her to stumble a couple of times. The analysis in the second point is stronger, but we need to hear a lot more analysis about the forces that would oppose China in the great war that the question talks about. Way too much Christian Science Monitor in this speech. The entangling alliances also needed a lot more depth. Grace hits the right arguments, but they lack the depth of other speakers in the round.
————————
Speaker 3 (176-Benjamin Mabie)
Question: What role does the U.S. play in the “Asian century”?
Answer: Geopolitical spoiler & Financial savior
AGD: China is the Happiest Place on Earth
Bgd./Sig: IMF 5/1-China will overtake U.S. economy by 2016 and is happening before 2025, which was first predicted
I. U.S. Will Undermine China Regional Authority
A-South China Sea
Geography of Chinese Power-South China Sea sees more trade than any other and that’s why China is going there
FT on Tues-Vietnam is courting U.S. influence to fight China back
B-Southeast Asia
ECO 6/11-China building up works in Cambodia
-Chinese creating ethnic tensions with Myanmar
Reuters-India approve of a deal for aircraft with the U.S.
II. U.S. Will Stabalize China’s Currency
A-China’s Currency
CHN source-China has high inflation, with 5.5% in May, up from 4.4% the previous month
CFR-China is repealing influence like the World Bank & IMF
WSJ 3/23-Tim Geithner has said he wants China to re-evaluate pressure on China to do something about the yuan
CX: Grace falls into the trap of asking too many questions that merely allow Ben to expand upon his analysis. She does not really attack the premise of his answer and quizzes him about other aspects of the U.S.-China relationship, such as how the U.S. can convince China to do something about the yuan. However, Grace also had a difficult task here because if she were to attack Ben’s geopolitical analysis she would nullify her own analysis in the previous speech.
Summary: Good use of the happiness study as an AGD. Very nice framing of the answer. The first point has some good examples, but it needs some specifics on what the U.S. is doing to really undermine China in the area. The second point didn’t have the same amount of depth as the first point. Ben did not illustrate the analysis between the yuan and helping Chinese inflation and why the U.S. would want to help China in this regard. If you are going to use two points, you should have two solid subpoints, but the second point seemed to lack that. I wonder if Ben should have just focused on the geopolitical element for this speech and ignored the economic end, since he was stronger on the geopolitics area of the speech.
————————
Speaker 4 (151-Curan Mehra)
Question: How should the international community address recognition of rebel governments?
Answer: Partners
AGD: Comparison of NFL Tournament & Arab revolts size
Bgd./Sig: 6/17 Goolsby-Anxious about power shifts
I. New Clout
Lexus & the Olive Tree-Growth of econ clout
Bloomberg 5/21-Oil wealth of ME countries makes them significant
Brookings 5/19-Energy consumption key to growth
AJ 5/24-Trade in the Middle East expected to increase 165% by 2020
World Bank-Business in ME challening because of govt control
Rand Corporation-If intl community does trade with these countries, it can open governments
II. Moderate
Clash of Civ-Clash of West & Islamic world
Ghost Wars-Muslim Brotherhood established its #1 goal as the elimination of Israel
CFR 5/13-Syrian reformers oppose Iran and Hezbollah
III. Intl Community Should Recognize Shift to Multipolar Dynamic
Tragedy of Great Power Polx-Offensive realism
Third Wave-Govts not sure where they stand in the world
CX: An interesting definition war breaks out between Curan and Ben at the beginning, with Ben wanting to limit it to the Libyan rebels and Curan wanting to have a broader focus on other revolts in Arab countries. Ben makes himself look strong in CX by probing Mehra’s economic analysis and Mehra has a great response when Ben brings up a Foreign Affairs article by citing the one that came before it in the publication.
Summary: Nice citing of one of the judges in the round, but the intro was somewhat stumbly. The fluency of the speech in general is off relative to other speakers, which may hurt Curan among some more delivery oriented judges. Curan has some great economic analysis in point one, but I would have liked more specific examples of government intervention in the Middle East. Good structure in point 2, from the theoretical to the specific. Point three didn’t pack the same punch as the first two points and was not as clear.
————————
Speaker 5 (226-Dylan Slinger)
Question: Will the new world order be contingent upon Eurasian geopolitics?
Answer: No because Russia, China, and India will check each other
AGD: Biased opinions in 24/7 news cycle & Jay Leno
Bgd./Sig: The U.S., Soviet Union, and UK-Rise of superpower in post-WW2 era
FA-Checks & balances will matter in the future
I. Military
Center for Strategic and Intl Studies-Old military industrial complex in Russia, but dilapidated now; 35 nuke reactors have corrosion
Stratford 5/27-China lags 35 years behind the U.S. militarily
Nye-U.S. rely on alliance
II. Economically
CFR Wed.-Demographics in India, China, and Russia will hamper real economic growth
Stratford-By 2050, shrink by 7% because of population gaps
FP 4/17-India and China pursuing economic interests and will fight for same customers
III. Ideologically Vigor Lacking
Army of Blue Ants-Rest of the world sees China as one nation; big differences in China between urban and rural
-Alcohol consumption in Russia too high
Stratford-China and Russia are refusing to embrace liberal policies and that cannot last
CX: Curan’s opening CX joke bombed (at least from the live stream) and he questions Dylan on his economic analysis, but Dylan points out that it will be difficult for China to rise without strong intellectual property rights.
Summary: Good clarification of what a superpower is in the intro, but I would’ve liked to hear just a little bit more about the rise of Eurasian powers. Dylan does a fantastic job having specific examples and not straying from what he’s trying to prove in each point, which is a good lesson for extempers to take away from this speech. Delivery wise, Dylan is clearly making his case, but he’s wanting to walk too quickly between points. I’m not sure if point one shows that these powers will check each other militarily.
————————
Speaker 6 (149-Milap Mehta)
Question: Should Brazil and India receive permanent seats on the UN Security Council?
AGD: Personal story
Bgd./Sig: FT 6/5-UN calls for lesser countries to become permanent members
I. Lack of Action by UN
Brookings 5/26-Russia and China extremely involved in nuclear proliferation talks
NYT 6/8-UN removed sanctions on NK
II. Overall Influence of Brazil
AP 6/8-Brazil doing a good job handling global inflation
SFC 6/7-Brazil effectively limiting drug cartel violence
III. Overall Influence of India
-India investing billions in Africa
AP 6/5-U.S. failed in nonproliferation discussions with Pakistan and India, but India saw success
CX: Dylan works in a very nice workability argument, with more vetos causing more problems, but gets to it at the end of the CX and we don’t get a lot of time on that question.
Summary: I’m not a fan of personal stories in extemp and in an intellectual round of this capacity it starts the speech on a bad note. I would’ve liked more background on the Brazil/India story and why those nations are preferred over other candidates like Germany or South Africa. There’s a lot of assertion in point one that Brazil and India could make a sanction regime work on North Korea and other nations. It’s not proven what type of influence these states have. Milap is using some pop culture references, but the audience is pretty burned out at this point and is not very receptive to them. Point two makes a good regional argument for Brazil, but how that justifies a UN Security Council seat is not as clear. Point three is a little controversial because bin Laden’s capture was not very popular on the Pakistani street and would strain India’s ability to work with Pakistan. Overall, there just isn’t a lot of solid analysis within the points relative to the other speakers in this round.
—————–
Final Ranks on My Ballot (Which Doesn’t Count):
1-Dylan Slinger (226)
2-Ashesh Rambachan (303)
3-Curan Mehra (151)
4-Ben Mabie (176)
5-Grace Pyo (113)
6-Milap Mehta (149)
[fblike] [twitter]