Oview Plan only expands standards to other countries that are already being used with Mexico.

There is no net increase in engagement by the United States towards Mexico. This means a couple of things. First, there is not an increase in economic engagement with Mexico, so AFF loses the Topicality debate. Second, it is a one hundred percent solvency takeout for both advantages. On biodiversity their Edwards in 07 evidence indicates that dolphins are dying in the Eastern Tropical Pacific region while using the same standards that the plan text wants to expand to other countries. Which might be okay if their Solvency card did what the tag clams it does,but it doesnt. The Henderson evidence discuss the approval of expanding the standards that are currently being used against Mexico to other countries, but does not speak to solvency within the Eastern Tropical Pacific region, which is where Mexico fishers are pulling their Tuna. The Affirmative case might make sense if the solvency evidence claimed to be solving for dolphins outside of this region, but it doesnt and it cant. The ETP is a unique region because it is the only place where dolphin and tuna swim together. This is why those seine nets are a sticking point with Mexico. Other areas, dont have this problem which was the motive behind the different standards to begin with. Even if ite AFF claims to somehow save for dolphin in other regions,then those advantages are 100% extra topical and should be severed out of fairness for the Negative team. Advantage two relations is a similar story. Since the international standards are identical to the ones being used against Mexico now, the tuna issue still remains a sticking point. Their own evidence says that the agreement on standards falls short of t he U.S. market opening that Mexican fishers *men hoped to achieve from the case. The tag line says that resolution on this issue boosts relations and we agree, however there isnt a line of evidence, accurately read, that says their Plan resolves this issue, in fact, as indicated by Palmer 13, Plan falls short. Then theres this issue of the second part of the plan text which reads and the US will grant Mexico dolphin safe status. Besides the plan flaw issues there are some problems with that. First, is Mexican fishers no longer have the accountability. In the status quo they cant meet dolphin safe standards and plan does nothing to help them do so, this means that dolphins will continue to die and grants the negative an internal link to their own impact. In fact, it probably makes advantage one more likely to happen since AFF fiats their status without applying the stringent standards it would be applying to the rest of the world. This means that post-plan Mexico can ignore the dolphin safe guidelines and still be granted dolphin safe status. Furthermore, this turns relations because other countries are now being subject to unfair regulations, regulations that shouldnt even be applicable because they are not contextual to their region of the ocean. and therein lies the inherent problem with the plan text. On one hand, it fiats a conditional

status and the second part functionally nulls the first part of the plan text. Or it uses international fiat to say that Mexico will always meet those standards And on the other hand, the negative ground given is not something that there could possibly be a literature base for. That would be the link evidence that says, granting Mexico tuna free status and potentially denying others,hurts relations with x country. Since, the Tuna Free issue has only ever affected Mexico, there is zero literature that says, if the US unfairy applies standards in Mexicos favor other countries would be upset, which is a logically valid claim that cant be supported by an academic writing about real world events.