1AC
PLAN
Plan:
The United States federal government should normalize its economic relations with Cuba.
1AC TRANSITION
Cuban reforms are inevitable but the loss of external investment risks economic and social
collapse – offering normal trade relations is vital
Ashby 13, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. He served in the U.S.
Commerce Department's International Trade Administration as Director of the Office of Mexico and the
Caribbean and acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for the Western Hemisphere(Timothy,
"Preserving Stability in Cuba After Normalizing Relations with the United States – The Importance of
Trading with State-Owned Enterprises" 3/29/13, Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
http://www.coha.org/preserving-stability-in-cuba-timothy-ashby/)//AD
Cuba under Raúl Castro has entered a new period of economic, social, and
political transformation. Reforms instituted within the past few years have
brought the expansion of private sector entrepreneurial activity, including lifting
restrictions on the sales of residential real estate, automobiles, and electronic goods. Additional reforms
included, more than a million hectares of idle land has been leased to private farmers, where citizens
have been granted permission to stay in hotels previously reserved for tourists, and freedom being
granted for most Cubans to travel abroad.
Stating that it was time for the “gradual transfer” of “key roles to new
generations,” President Raúl Castro announced that he will retire by 2018, and
named as his possible successor a man who was not even born at the time of the Cuban Revolution. [1]
The twilight of the Castro era presents challenges and opportunities for US policy makers. Normalization
of relations is inevitable, regardless of timing, yet external and internal factors may accelerate or retard
the process.
The death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is likely to undermine the already
dysfunctional Cuban economy, if it leads to reductions in oil imports and other forms of aid.
This could bring social chaos, especially among the island’s disaffected youth. Such an
outcome would generate adverse consequences for US national and regional security. To maintain
Cuba’s social and economic stability while reforms are maturing, the United
States must throw itself open to unrestricted bilateral trade with all Cuban
enterprises, both private and state-owned.
The collapse of Cuba’s tottering economy could seismically impact the United
States and neighboring countries. It certainly did during the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, precipitated by a
downturn in the Cuban economy which led to tensions on the island. Over 125,000 Cuban refugees
landed in the Miami area, including 3 ls and mental patients. Today, the United States defines its
national security interests regarding Cuba as follows:
• Avoid one or more mass migrations;
• Prevent Cuba from becoming another porous border that allows continuous large-scale migration to
the hemisphere;
• Prevent Cuba from becoming a major source or transshipment point for the illegal drug trade;
• Avoid Cuba becoming a state with ungoverned spaces that could provide a platform for terrorists and
others wishing to harm the United States. [2]
All of these national security threats are directly related to economic and social conditions within Cuba.
US policy specifically supports “a market-oriented economic system” [3] toward Cuba, yet regulations
prohibit the importation of any goods of Cuban origin, whether from the island’s potentially booming
private sector – including 300,000 agricultural producers – or State-Owned Enterprises (“SOEs”). [4]
Such a policy is counterproductive to US interests. Regardless of over 400,000 entrepreneurs, including
agricultural cultivators, it could be many years, if ever, when Cuba’s private sector would be ready to
serve as the engine of economic growth. SOEs employ 72 percent of Cuban workers. [5]
A rational commercial rapprochement towards Cuba 1,000 crimina
would therefore require a change in current laws and in the system of regulations prohibiting the
importation of Cuban goods and products. Normalized bilateral trade will benefit the
Cuban people by helping to provide economic stability and fostering the
growth of a middle class – both of which are essential for the foundation of
democratic institutions. Two-way trade must include both Cuba’s private
sector as well as SOEs.
Cuban collapse destroys the global war on terror and makes conflicts in hotspots around the
globe more likely
Gorrell, 5 - Lieutenant Colonel, US Army, paper submitted for the USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT
(Tim, “CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC CRISIS?” http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074 GWOT=Global War on Terrorism
Regardless of the succession, under the current U.S. policy, Cuba’s problems of a post Castro
transformation only worsen. In addition to Cubans on the island, there will be those in exile
who will return claiming authority. And there are remnants of the dissident community within Cuba who
will attempt to exercise similar authority. A power vacuum or absence of order will
create the conditions for instability and civil war. Whether Raul or another successor
from within the current government can hold power is debatable. However, that individual will
nonetheless extend the current policies for an indefinite period, which will only compound the Cuban
situation. When Cuba finally collapses anarchy is a strong possibility if the
U.S. maintains the “wait and see” approach. The U.S. then must deal with an
unstable country 90 miles off its coast. In the midst of this chaos, thousands will flee the
island. During the Mariel boatlift in 1980 125,000 fled the island.26 Many were criminals; this time the
number could be several hundred thousand fleeing to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis.
Equally important, by adhering to a negative containment policy, the U.S. may be creating its next series
of transnational criminal problems. Cuba is along the axis of the drug-trafficking flow into the U.S. from
Columbia. The Castro government as a matter of policy does not support the drug trade. In fact, Cuba’s
actions have shown that its stance on drugs is more than hollow rhetoric as indicated by its increasing
seizure of drugs – 7.5 tons in 1995, 8.8 tons in 1999, and 13 tons in 2000.27 While there may be
individuals within the government and outside who engage in drug trafficking and a percentage of drugs
entering the U.S. may pass through Cuba, the Cuban government is not the path of least resistance for
the flow of drugs. If there were no Cuban restraints, the flow of drugs to the U.S. could be greatly
facilitated by a Cuba base of operation and accelerate considerably.
In the midst of an unstable Cuba, the opportunity for radical fundamentalist groups
to operate in the region increases. If these groups can export terrorist
activity from Cuba to the U.S. or throughout the hemisphere then the war against
this extremism gets more complicated. Such activity could increase direct attacks and
disrupt the economies, threatening the stability of the fragile democracies
that are budding throughout the region. In light of a failed state in the region, the U.S. may be
forced to deploy military forces to Cuba, creating the conditions for another
insurgency. The ramifications of this action could very well fuel greater anti-American sentiment
throughout the Americas. A proactive policy now can mitigate these potential
future problems.
U.S. domestic political support is also turning against the current negative policy. The Cuban American
population in the U.S. totals 1,241,685 or 3.5% of the population.28 Most of these exiles reside in
Florida; their influence has been a factor in determining the margin of victory in the past two
presidential elections. But this election strategy may be flawed, because recent polls of Cuban
Americans reflect a decline for President Bush based on his policy crackdown. There is a clear softening
in the Cuban-American community with regard to sanctions. Younger Cuban Americans do not
necessarily subscribe to the hard-line approach. These changes signal an opportunity for a new
approach to U.S.-Cuban relations. (Table 1)
The time has come to look realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until he dies. The only issue is
what happens then? The U.S. can little afford to be distracted by a failed state 90
miles off its coast. The administration, given the present state of world affairs, does
not have the luxury or the resources to pursue the traditional American model
of crisis management. The President and other government and military leaders have warned
that the GWOT will be long and protracted. These warnings were sounded when the
administration did not anticipate operations in Iraq consuming so many military, diplomatic and
economic resources. There is justifiable concern that Africa and the Caucasus region are
potential hot spots for terrorist activity, so these areas should be secure. North
Korea will continue to be an unpredictable crisis in waiting. We also cannot ignore
China. What if China resorts to aggression to resolve the Taiwan situation? Will
the U.S. go to war over Taiwan? Additionally, Iran could conceivably be the next target for U.S. preemptive action. These are known and potential situations that could easily require all
or many of the elements of national power to resolve. In view of such global issues,
can the U.S. afford to sustain the status quo and simply let the Cuban
situation play out? The U.S. is at a crossroads: should the policies of the past 40 years remain in
effect with vigor? Or should the U.S. pursue a new approach to Cuba in an effort to facilitate a
manageable transition to post-Castro Cuba?
Hotspots all risk escalation to global nuclear war
David Bosco (a senior editor at Foreign Policy magazine) July 2006 “Forum: Keeping an eye peeled for
World War III” http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06211/709477-109.stm_
The understanding that small
but violent acts can spark global conflagration
is etched into the world's
consciousness. The reverberations from Princip's shots in the summer of 1914 ultimately took the lives of more than 10 million people,
shattered four empires and dragged more than two dozen countries into war.
This hot summer, as
the world watches the violence in the Middle East, the
awareness of peace's fragility is particularly acute. The bloodshed in Lebanon appears to be part of
a broader upsurge in unrest. Iraq is suffering through one of its bloodiest months since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Taliban militants are
burning schools and attacking villages in southern Afghanistan as the United States and NATO struggle to defend that country's fragile
government. Nuclear-armed
India is still cleaning up the wreckage from a large terrorist attack in which it suspects
militants from rival Pakistan. The world is awash in weapons, North Korea
and Iran are developing nuclear capabilities, and long-range missile technology is spreading like a virus.
Some see the start of a global conflict. "We're
in the early stages of what I would describe as
the Third World War," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said recently. Certain religious Web sites are abuzz with talk of
Armageddon. There may be as much hyperbole as prophecy in the forecasts for world war. But it's not hard to conjure
ways that today's hot spots could ignite.
Consider the following scenarios:

Targeting Iran: As Israeli troops seek out and destroy Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon, intelligence officials spot a shipment of
longer-range Iranian missiles heading for Lebanon. The Israeli government decides to strike the convoy and Iranian nuclear facilities
simultaneously. After Iran has recovered from the shock, Revolutionary Guards surging across the border into Iraq, bent on striking
Israel's American allies. Governments in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia face violent street protests demanding retribution
against Israel -- and they eventually yield, triggering

a major regional war.
Missiles away: With the world's eyes on the Middle East, North Korea's Kim Jong Il decides to
continue the fireworks show he began earlier this month. But this time his brinksmanship pushes events over the brink. A missile
designed to fall into the sea near Japan goes astray and hits Tokyo, killing a dozen civilians. Incensed, the United States, Japan's
treaty ally, bombs North Korean missile and nuclear sites. North Korean artillery batteries fire on Seoul, and South Korean and U.S.
troops respond. Meanwhile, Chinese troops cross the border from the north to stem the flow of desperate refugees just as U.S.
troops advance from the south. Suddenly, the world's superpower and the newest great power are nose to nose.


Loose nukes: Al-Qaida
has had Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in its sights for
years, and the organization finally gets its man. Pakistan descends into chaos as militants
roam the streets and the army struggles to restore order. India decides to exploit
the vacuum and punish the Kashmir-based militants it blames for the recent Mumbai railway bombings. Meanwhile, U.S. special
operations forces sent to secure Pakistani nuclear facilities face off against an angry mob.
The empire strikes back: Pressure for democratic reform erupts in autocratic Belarus. As protesters mass outside the parliament in
Minsk, president Alexander Lukashenko requests Russian support. After protesters are beaten and killed, they appeal for help, and
neighboring Poland -- a NATO member with bitter memories of Soviet repression -- launches a humanitarian mission to shelter the
regime's opponents. Polish and Russian troops clash, and a confrontation with NATO looms.
As in the run-up to other wars, there
is today more than enough tinder lying around to
spark a great power conflict. The question is how effective the major powers
have become at managing regional conflicts and preventing them from
escalating. After two world wars and the decades-long Cold War, what has the world learned about managing conflict?
The end of the Cold War had the salutary effect of dialing down many regional conflicts. In the 1960s
and 1970s, every crisis in the Middle East had the potential to draw in the superpowers in defense of
their respective client states. The rest of the world was also part of the Cold War chessboard. Compare
the almost invisible U.N. peacekeeping mission in Congo today to the deeply controversial mission there
in the early 1960s. (The Soviets were convinced that the U.N. mission was supporting a U.S. puppet, and
Russian diplomats stormed out of several Security Council meetings in protest.) From Angola to
Afghanistan, nearly every Cold War conflict was a proxy war. Now, many local crises can be handed off
to the humanitarians or simply ignored.
But the end of the bipolar world has a downside. In the old days, the two competing superpowers
sometimes reined in bellicose client states out of fear that regional conflicts would escalate. Which of
the major powers today can claim to have such influence over Tehran or Pyongyang?
Today's world has one great advantage: None of the leading powers appears determined to reorder
international affairs as Germany was before both world wars and as Japan was in the years before World
War II.
True, China is a rapidly rising power -- an often destabilizing phenomenon in international relations -but it appears inclined to focus on economic growth rather than military conquest (with the possible
exception of Taiwan). Russia is resentful about its fall from superpower status, but it also seems
reconciled to U.S. military dominance and more interested in tapping its massive oil and gas reserves
than in rebuilding its decrepit military.
Indeed, U.S. military superiority seems to be a key to global stability. Some
theories of international relations predict that other major powers will eventually band together to
challenge American might, but it's hard to find much evidence of such behavior. The United States, after
all, invaded Iraq without U.N. approval and yet there was not even a hint that France, Russia or China
would respond militarily.
Independently, enforcing the embargo itself undermines the war on terror
Johnson, et al, 10 – Andy Johnson is a director in the national security program at The Third Way (“End
the Embargo of Cuba”, The National Security Program, 9/6/10,
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo__End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf)//EX
Keeping the embargo in place requires that the US government devote time and resources to fighting a
Cold War-era threat. Senator Chris Dodd argued in a 2005 oped that the US spends
“extraordinary resources” each year to enforce the sanctions instead of
devoting such resources to the fight against terrorism.4 While the financial
resources dedicated to enforcing the embargo may be limited compared to resources dedicated to other
causes, lifting the Cuban embargo could put the US in a better position to fight
terrorist organizations by freeing up resources currently enforcing the
embargo.
For example, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC),
which governs travel and trade between the US and Cuba, is also responsible for
maintaining sanctions against truly problematic countries, including Iran
and North Korea. OFAC also is responsible for responding to economic
threats posed by terrorist organizations and narcotics traffickers. By ending
OFAC’s need to regulate the Cuban embargo, OFAC could instead devote
those resources to respond to the current threats posed by rogue states and
terrorist networks.
Cuba also remains on the State Department’s state sponsor of terrorism list along with Iran, Syria, and
Sudan,5 despite claims by experts such as former National Coordinator for Security and
Counterterrorism Richard Clarke that Cuba is only on the list for domestic political reasons.6 A 1998
report by the US Intelligence Community determined that Cuba does not pose a threat to US national
security,7 yet the State Department continues to keep Cuba on the list. By normalizing relations with
Cuba and removing Cuba from the list, the State Department could better focus on actual state sponsors
of terror and instead use resources in the Western Hemisphere bureau to initiate a new path for
engaging Cuba.
Greater focus and resources to counter-terrorism is vital – WMD terrorism risks are increasing
Clark, 13 - Bruce Clarke is a retired Army Colonel with extensive strategic, operational and tactical
experience. He is widely published on a myriad of strategic and operational subjects. Immediately prior
to his retirement from the Army, Colonel Clarke was the Director of US National Security Studies at the
US Army War College (Bruce, The Examiner, “ The end to the war on terrorism--really?” 5/28,
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-end-to-the-war-on-terrorism-really)
I have been struck by the response to what my liberal friends call President Obama’s most significant
speeches since taking office. They claim that he not only did not simply declare an end to the post-9/11
era. He also offered a vision of America's role in the world that he hopes could be one of his lasting
legacies. The vision is one based upon liberal thoughts of law and order and criminal proceedings not
one that is based upon national interests.
He argues, they claim, that we should favor energetic diplomacy, foreign aid and
more measured responses to terrorism to the active engagement of terrorists in the past.
Some have even suggested that he wants to capture terrorists and bring them to the US for trial.
Thankfully even his liberal supporters understand the fallacy in this.
Unfortunately this ambitious vision is unattainable because it is not based in the
reality that is the world today. To say that it is fraught with risks, and hostage to
forces that are out of the president's control would be an understatement.
His poll based attempt to change the agenda (polls show an American war weariness) away
from violations of the first amendment, the IRS scandal and Benghazi does not consider:



The toxic civil war in Syria
The extremist threat in Yemen
The American relationship with Pakistan as we seek to withdraw troops from
Afghanistan

The increasing threat that is Iran and its proxies – Hezbollah and
Hamas

The upcoming Islamic summer both domestically and internationally

The growing tensions created by Chinese attempts to dominate the
South China Sea
The increase of Al Qaeda and its affiliated Islamic terrorist groups in
North and Central Africa—the French are withdrawing from Mali, but the terrorists




are not defeated, only scattered. The President’s claim that Al Qaeda has been defeated is
blatantly false according to the RAND Corporation and even some liberal think tanks.
Al Qaeda may be less concentrated than it was in Afghanistan but it is much more
widely spread than it was.
North Korea’s, reduced from the recent heights, but still present bellicosity continues
Finally, if all of these problems were solved he has no clear sense of what comes afterward
He made this speech at the same time that the Saudis are concerned about the growing Iranian nuclear
threat and overall threat to the region. Every arm chair strategist in Saudi Arabia has a version of the
upcoming attack on the kingdom.
Amid all of this uncertainty, it was telling that neither the president in his speech nor his aides afterward
made any firm declarations about how his vision would be carried out. For example the vaunted
reduction in drone strikes lacked any specificity.
The reality that was not even mentioned in the President’s speech is that the terrorist threat is
also likely to last for decades, and it may increase as technology advances. He
never mentioned weapons of mass destruction (WMD). WMD in the hands of terrorists is
the greatest threat to the US, Israel and our allies around the world! No one should doubt that al
Qaeda, Hezbollah or Iran's Revolutionary Guards will use them when they get them.
This risks extinction
Ayson 10 - Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand
at the Victoria University of Wellington
(Robert, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism,
33.7, InformaWorld)//BB
But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable.
It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an
act of nuclear terrorism, could
precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear
weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context,
today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small
nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks
were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a
considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive
inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia
and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state
sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior
that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how
might
the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile
material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian
stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to
a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris
resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in
tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and
collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its
analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most
important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41
Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and
American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully
responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state
possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well,
authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly
Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if
the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing
tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a
time when threats had already been traded between these major powers,
would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst?
Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the
United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict
with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a
distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply
too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United
States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or
encourager of the attack? Washington’s
early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on
its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear
aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and
confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack,
the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces,
including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense
environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of
reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly
read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force)
against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although
it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.
The unconditional offer of normal trade relations boosts US-Cuban relations and fosters a
stable transition
Koenig, 10 – US Army Colonel, paper submitted for a Masters in Strategic Studies at the US Army War
College (Lance, “Time for a New Cuba Policy” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA518130)
The option with the greatest possibility of success and reward for the United States is to support the
Cuban people, but not the Cuban government. The United States should take the following
actions unilaterally:
• Lift completely the economic embargo. Establish banking and financial
relationships to facilitate the trading of goods and services between the two
countries.
• Lift completely the travel ban to allow not only Cuban-Americans with relatives but also all other
Americans to travel to Cuba. This interaction of Americans with Cubans will help raise the awareness of
Cubans about their northern neighbor.
• Next, the United States should engage the Cuban government to develop a
bilateral trade agreement. The goal of this initiative would be to achieve
normal trade relations between the two countries.
This leaves the issue of compensation for United States companies and individuals whose property was
expropriated by the Cuban government. With the embargo lifted, the United States should enlist the
assistance of the European Union and Canada to apply pressure to Cuba as well as to assist in
negotiations with the World Trade Organization to address issues with illegally confiscated property.36
The United States will gain leverage with the Cuban government as relations
improve, and that will be the time to address human rights in Cuba. The return of
the Cuban Five, a group of Cuban spies arrested and convicted in Florida, should be worth some human
rights concessions. In Cuba, these men are known as the “Cinco Heroes” and their plight is well
known.37
So what leverage do we have now that we have unilaterally given the Cuban
government most of what they have wanted? Offer to return back to Cuba the
Guantanamo Naval Base after the government of Cuba shifts towards a representative orm of
government. The foundation for this action has already been laid with the
Libertad Act. “The future of the Guantanamo base, a provision in the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act of 1996 states that once a democratically elected Cuban government is in place, United
States policy is to be prepared to enter into negotiations either to return the base to Cuba or to
renegotiate the present agreement under mutually agreeable terms.” 38 The United States Congress
should soften the language referring to a democratically elected government and instead substitute that
a representative form of government is required before entering into negotiations for the Guantanamo
base.
Once Cuba makes changes towards a representative form of government the United States can start
working on democratic reforms. The carrot is to offer Cuba, in exchange for changes to a democratic
form of government, support for their return to the Organization of American States (OAS). Until Cuba
makes changes towards democracy, the United States should block the request of several member
states to let Cuba into the organization. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it well in a recent
interview. “Many member countries originally sought to lift the 1962 suspension and allow Cuba to
return immediately, without conditions, others agreed with us that the right approach was to replace
the suspension — which has outlived its purpose after nearly half a century — with a process of dialogue
and a future decision that will turn on Cuba’s commitment to the organization’s values.”39 These values
include promoting democracy and defending human rights.
The window of opportunity is open now for this type of change. The Obama administration has taken
some steps in this direction with the lifting of remittance limits, unlimited visits to relatives in Cuba, and
the ability to provide cell phones to relatives in Cuba. The other recent change is the new majority of
Cuban-Americans, in Florida, that support removal of the embargo. Based on votes in the United
Nations and the European Union it is clear that world opinion would definitely be supportive of this
action. The combination of the above mentioned events now points to an opportunity to make real
progress that will benefit both nations. The United States would gain in soft power, gain
an additional economic trading partner, and have a chance to influence the
type of changes in the Cuban government as the Castro influence wanes. Clearly, support to the Cuban
people will indirectly provide support to the Cuban government, but that could work against the regime
as well if the people realize that improvements in their living conditions are not the result of
communism, but from the interaction with the capitalist world.
There is a sound reason for unilaterally lifting the trade and travel embargoes
without first seeing positive actions from the Cuban government . From Cuba expert Carlos A.
Saladrigas, Co-Chairman, Cuba Study Group, “We can go back in the history -- in the 50-year
history of United States-Cuba relations and clearly see that any time we begin to see a
little bit of relaxation of tensions in the relationship, whenever we begin to see a little bit of
openness on the part of the United States or Cuba, historically the Cuban government has
done something to counteract that trend and significantly revert back to
their playbook.” 40 The United States needs to take the initiative away from the
Castro regime, and have them react to actions they have publicly called for (removal
of the embargo), but in reality are unsure of the second and third order effects and
their ability to control the outcome.
One of the first problems for the Cuban government after the removal of the embargo
will be the excuse for the poor performing economy. “… the embargo and the United
States policy of confrontation and isolation have been incredibly useful to the Cuban regime as an alibi
for the failures of the regime to meet the fundamental needs of the people on the island, but also is a
significant source of legitimacy, both internal and external.” 41 This situation may present
the United States with the opportunity to step in to assist with market reforms
if the Cuban economy sputters and the government realizes they don’t have
a scapegoat.
Conclusion
The efforts expended by the United States to keep the embargo effective, the loss of trade, and the loss
of soft power in most of the world are clearly not worth it in comparison to the threat that Cuba poses
today. The gains to be achieved by following any path other than the unilateral removal of the economic
and travel embargoes are small in comparison to the overall costs of continuing the current failed policy.
The United States is losing far too much soft power in its efforts to punish and
isolate the government of Cuba. American firms could be left out of any economic gains as Cuba
continues to grow its economy. As Cuba emerges from the economic difficulties of the last two decades,
the United States has an opportunity to influence the future direction of our southern neighbor. The
current United States policy has many passionate defenders, and their criticism of the Castro regime is
justified. Nevertheless, we must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the
Cuban regime in a way that enhances United States interests.42
The United States cannot afford to miss out on the window of opportunity to affect a positive change in
the relationship with Cuba. If Cuba is able to continue on a path of economic
progress and emerge once again as a true regional power, with communism
intact, the United States will be the loser in this half century struggle. Cuba is
spreading its limited influence to Venezuela, Honduras, Nicaragua, and will
be ready to bring in any other countries in the Americas that want to move
away from the United States orbit. The United States can’t stand by and watch Cuba regain
strength, intact as a communist country, but must take this opportunity to create an inflection point for
Cuba that guides her onto a path that will benefit the nations of the Americas.
1AC MULTILATERALISM
US leadership is unsustainable without a highly visible commitment to multilateralism
Lake, 10– Professor of Social Sciences, distinguished professor of political science at UC San Diego (David
A., “Making America Safe for the World: Multilateralism and the Rehabilitation of US authority”,
http://dss.ucsd.edu/~dlake/documents/LakeMakingAmericaSafe.pdf)//NG
The safeguarding of US authority requires multilateralism that is broader
and certainly deeper than in the 1990s—more like NATO than the ad hoc coalitions of the
new world order. Indeed, absent the constraints exerted by competition with the Soviet Union, the
institutional fetters through which the United States must bind its own hands will have to be even
stronger than those in NATO. 47 The great paradox of contemporary international politics is that the
unprecedented international power of the United States requires even more
binding constraints on its policy is fit to preserve the authority that it has
built over the last half-century and extend it to new areas of the globe.
The advanced military capabilities of the United States will make it a key actor in
any such multilateral institution and will allow it to set the collective
agenda. Since it is highly unlikely that anything will happen in the absence of US involvement, as in
Bosnia where the Europeans dithered until the United States stepped to the fore, 48 Americans
need not be overly concerned about “runaway” organizations or global
mission creep. At the same time, if any organization is to be an effective restraint on the United
States, other countries will have to make serious and integral contributions to the collective effort. Both
sides to this new multilateral bargain will need to recognize and appreciate the benefits of a stable
international order to their own security and prosperity and contribute to its success - 480 Making
America Safe for the World. The United States will need to continue to play a
disproportionate role in providing international order, even as it accepts new
restraints on its freedom of action. Other countries, however, must also contribute to the provision of
this political order so that they can provide a meaningful check on US authority.
Americans are likely to resist the idea of tying their hands more tightly in a new multilateral compact.
After six decades, US leadership and its fruits— security, free trade, economic
prosperity—have developed a taken-for-granted quality. It is hard for
average Americans to tally the myriad benefits they receive from the
country’s position of authority, but it is relatively easy for them to see multilateral
institutions constraining the country’s freedom of action. Precisely because unipolarity makes coercion
and unilateralism possible, and for some attractive, any constraints on US foreign policy may appear too
high a price to bear. 49
But if the United States is to remain the leader of the free world and possibly
beyond, it must make its authority safe for others. To sustain US authority
over the long term, it must be embedded in new, more constraining
multilateral institutions. Americans trust their government only because of its internal checks
and balances. Although there may be disagreements on exactly where the appropriate scope of
government authority ends, nearly all Americans agree that limited government is the best form of
government. This same principle extends abroad. If the United States is to exercise
authority over other states, and enjoy its fruits, that authority must be
checked and balanced as well. The height of hubris is not that the United States might govern
the world, at least in part. This is a fact of international politics. Rather, hubris arises in the
belief that the virtue of its people and leaders will restrain the United States
sufficiently such that other peoples will voluntarily cede a measure of their
sovereignty to it. 50 Politicians and peoples may occasionally be saintly, but it would be folly
to rely on this quality at home or abroad. Recognizing the universal need to
restrain authority, the United States should, in its own self-interest, lead
the way to a new world order.
The plan is a powerful symbol of that commitment
Burgsdorff, 9– Ph. D in Political Science from Freiburg University, EU Fellow at the University of Miami
(Sven Kühn von, “Problems and Opportunities for the Incoming Obama Administration”,
http://aei.pitt.edu.proxy.lib.umich.edu/11047/1/vonBurgsdorfUSvsCubalong09edi.pdf)//NG
At international level all major actors would
clearly welcome an end to the embargo. While the sanctions policy allowed
European, Canadian and, more recently, Venezuelan, Chinese, Brazilian
and Russian to become more involved with Cuba in the absence of competitors from the US (with
the exception of agriculture produce), most of the foreign powers, and in particular the EU
and Latin American countries, would clearly support a definite lifting of the
coercive measures. Ending the embargo would be perceived as a decision
carrying a momentum of powerful symbolism since it would signal a newly
found willingness in Washington to reconsider the usefulness of acting
unilaterally and outside the international legal framework. As a matter of fact, together
6.3 How would the international community react?
with other measures such as closing Guantanamo, signing up to the Kyoto Protocol and putting into practice the succeeding agreement under
the Bali conference, and possibly, joining the International Criminal Court as well as ratifying further international human rights treaties such as
the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child, it would
be interpreted by the international
community as steps towards effective multilateralism.
The alternative to multilateralism is unilateral militarism – the plan establishes a
model for hemispheric diplomacy that sustains US leadership
Grandin 10 – teaches history at New York University and is a member of the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences (Greg, “Empire's Senescence: U.S. Policy in Latin America,” New Labor Forum, 19:1,
Winter 2010, pg. 14-23)//SJF
Washington’s relations with Latin America—particularly in terms of the gap between what its policy
toward the region is and what it could be—precisely measure the degree to which domestic ideologies,
narrow corporate and sectional interests, and a sclerotic political system are hastening the decline of
the United States as a global power. As a result, the U.S. is deepening its dependence on
unstable policies in order to leverage its dwindling influence in the
hemisphere. It is easy to imagine an improved U.S. diplomacy toward Latin
America, designed not to advance a set of altruistic ideals but merely to defend its interests—
broadly defined to mean stable politics and economies that are open to U.S. capital and commodities—
and to achieve what those in the liberal wing of the foreign policy establishment have long advocated: a maximization
of U.S. “soft power.” Harvard’s Joseph S. Nye defines soft power as “the ability to get what you
want through attraction rather than coercion,” through an enhanced
understanding and utilization of multilateral institutions, mutually
beneficial policies, cultural exchanges, and commercial relations.1 There are no
immediate threats to the U.S. in Latin America. A majority of the region’s political elite—even most of its current govern- ing leftists—share
many of the same values the United States claims to embody, even more so following the election of the first African-American president, who
is wildly popular in Latin America. As a result, there
is no other place in the world that offers U.S.
president Barack Obama the opportunity to put into place the kind of intelligent
foreign policy that he and his closest advisors, such as United Nations (U.N.) ambassador Susan Rice,
believe is necessary to stop the hemorrhaging of U.S. prestige—one that
would both improve Washington’s ability to deploy its many competitive
advantages, while removing key points of friction. Here’s what such a policy could look
like: Washington would concede to longstanding Brazilian demands by reducing tariffs and subsidies that protect the U.S. agricultural industry,
opening its market to Brazilian com- modities, especially soy and sugar, as well as value-added ethanol. It would yield on other issues that have
stalled the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), such as a demand for strident intellectual property rights enforcement,
which Brazil objects to because it would disadvantage its own pharmaceutical industry and hinder its ability to provide low-cost medicine to
those infected with the HIV virus. Such concessions would provide an incentive for Brasilia to take the lead in jumpstarting the FTAA, a treaty
that would ultimately benefit U.S. corporations, yet would be meaningless without Brazil, South America’s largest and most dynamic economy.
The U.S. would scale back its military operations in Colombia—including recent con- troversial plans to establish a series of military bases which have raised strong
criticisms from the governments of Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Venezuela. Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—who is entering the last year
of his second and last term—has become the spokesperson for the collective discontent, an indication of his country’s regional authority. In exchange for the U.S.
dialing down its military presence, a soon-to-be post-Lula Brazil might find it convenient to tilt away from Venezuela and toward the United States.
Washington would also drop the five-decade-old trade embargo on Cuba, thus
burying a Cold War relic that continues to tarnish the U.S. image. Normalizing relations
with Cuba would create an additional enticement for Brazil to cooperate
with the U.S., since its formidable agro-industry is beginning to invest in Cuba and is therefore well-placed to
export to the U.S. market. Politically, Washington
would formally recommit to a multilateral foreign policy, even as it set up
a de facto arrangement with Brazil to administer the region. This would mean demonstrating its willingness to work through
the Organization of American States (OAS). More importantly, it would mean leashing the quasiprivatized “democracy promotion” organizations—largely funded by the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED) and the Agency for International Development, and run by the International
Republican Institute—that have become vectors of trans- national, conservative coalition building
throughout the hemisphere. These groups today do overtly what the CIA used to do covertly, as NED's first president, Allen Weinstein, admitted—
they fund oppositional “civil soci- ety” groups that use the rhetoric of democracy and human rights to menace Left govern- ments throughout the region, including
the promotion of an aborted coup in Venezuela in 2002 and successful ones in Haiti in 2004 and Honduras in 2009.2 Similar destabilization efforts tried to topple
Bolivia’s Evo Morales in 2008 but failed, at least partly because Brazil and Chile let it be known that they would not accept those kinds of machinations in their
backyards. It would be easy for the Obama administration to rein these groups in, and to agree to Latin American demands to make their funding more transparent
and their actions more accountable. Washington
would also take a number of other initiatives to modernize
hemispheric diplomacy, including deescalating its failed “War on Drugs,” as Latin America’s leading
intellectuals and policymakers—including many former presidents—are demanding; in the last few months,
both Mexico and Argentina have legalized some drug use and possession, including small quantities of cocaine and heroin.3 The U.S. would
renew its assault weapons ban, as Mexico—battered by over five thousand narcotics-related murders a year, many of them committed with
smuggled U.S. guns—is begging. It could also pass meaningful immigration reform, providing a path to U.S. citizenship for the millions of
undocumented Latin Americans, mostly from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and the Andes, but also Brazil. Such a move would go a
long way toward improving relations with south- ern neighbors. It would also be good domestic politics for the Democrats, guaranteeing the
loyalty of the Latino vote in 2012 and moving Texas, by creating millions of new vot- ers, closer to swing-state status. It could also provide
progressives and the Democratic Party with a real wedge issue: Catholics, increasingly pulled into the con- servative camp by issues such as
abortion and gay rights, overwhelmingly favor immigration reform. Any one of the above steps would go far in reestablishing U.S. legitimacy in
Latin America. Taken together they could serve as a diplomatic revolution, one which would not weaken U.S. power but consolidate it much the
way the Good Neighbor Policy did, allowing Washington to project its power in the region through stable multilateral mechanisms freed from
the burdens of confrontation and militarism. A retooled FTAA, updated for the post-Great Recession world and stripped of the ideologi- cal
baggage of failed neoliberal globalization, might provide a blueprint for a sustainable regional economy, one that balances national
development and corporate profit.4 And like the Good Neighbor Policy, a
reinvigorated hemispheric
diplomacy could serve as a model for the rest of the world, a design for a
practical twenty-first century multilateralism, capable of responding to
transnational problems—both those that concern liberals, such as climate change,
poverty, and migration, and those that concern conservatives, such as crime and terrorism—while respecting, at least rhetorically, the sovereignty of individual nations. In short, the
Western Hemisphere offers an unparalleled opportunity to realize the vision of Barack Obama’s
September 2009 address to the United Nations—hailed by many as a clarion call for a new
internationalism—to, in his words, “embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interest and
mutual respect.” It’s not going to happen. Efforts to implement any one of the above policy changes would be
blocked by powerful domestic interests. Take biofuels. The idea to liberalize the U.S. agricultural market—and have the rhetoric
of free trade somewhat match the reality—is recommended by all mainstream think tanks, including the Council on Foreign Relations and the
Brookings Institution, as an important step to win back Brazil. Obama recognizes the importance of Brazil, having nominated George W. Bush’s
outgoing assistant secretary of state for Latin America, Thomas Shannon—respected in establishment circles as, according to the journal
Foreign Policy, “the most talented and successful individual” to serve as Washington’s envoy to Latin America “in at least two decades”—as its
ambassador. Yet Shannon’s confirmation had been threatened by Senator Chuck Grassley, representing the agro-industry state of Iowa, who
objected to the then-nominee’s comment during his confirma- tion hearings that removing a fifty-four-cent per gallon tariff on imported
ethanol would be good for U.S. foreign policy. The White House immediately declared that it had no plans to change tariff policy, and Grassley
allowed the confirmation to proceed.5 The White House’s quick buckling probably has to do with its fruitless attempt to win over Grassley for
health care reform, a further indicator of how foreign policy is held hostage by domestic politics. Similar
obstacles stand in the way
of other foreign policy reforms. The Cuban lobby, along with the broader conservative Right, prevents a
normalization of relations with Havana. Fear of the National Rifle Association halts a renewal of the assault weapons ban. As to
the “War on Drugs,” the Democratic Party is deeply committed to “Plan Colombia,” the centerpiece of that war. It is, after all, a legacy of Bill
Clinton’s foreign policy, and much of the $6 billion spent to fight it thus far goes directly into the coffers of corporate sponsors of the
Democratic Party like Connecticut’s United Technologies and other northeastern defense contractors (it was Bill Clinton who in 1997, acting on
behalf of Lockheed Martin, lifted a twenty-year ban on high-tech weapons sales to Latin America, kicking off an arms build-up, in which
Colombia, Chile, and Brazil have taken the lead).6 As to immigration reform—also recom- mended by influential establishment groups to
improve U.S. standing in Latin America— Obama, in Mexico, said it would have to wait until next year. He has a near-filibuster-proof majority in
the Senate and a large majority in the House, yet he says there aren’t enough votes and “there is not, by any means, con- sensus across the
table.”7 Obama could easily assemble a majority coalition on this issue—comprised of business interests who want cheap labor, Hispanics,
progressives, social justice Catholics, and members of the labor movement (who long ago signaled their support for immigration reform)—yet
fear of a backlash fueled by a contracting economy has led him to back- burner the issue. The
same conditions that make Latin
America the best venue in which to modernize U.S. diplomacy—namely that there is no immediate
threat emerging from the region, no equivalent of North Korea or Iran on the verge of acquiring a
nuclear bomb, no insurgency bogging down U.S. troops as in Afghanistan, and no conflict threatening
access to vital resources (Washington’s main antagonist in the region, Venezuela, continues to sell most
of its oil to the U.S.)—also mean that there are no real incentives for Obama’s fledgling foreign policy
coalition to expend political capital on trying to improve policy there. Analysts of the American empire—from Charles
A. Beard in the 1930s to William Appleman Williams in the 1960s and 1970s— have emphasized the U.S.’s unique ability to subsume competing
economic, ideological, and sectional interests into a flexible and vital diplomacy in defense of a general “national interest,” which has led
America to unprec- edented global power.8 Yet now—confronted with a sustained economic contraction, the fallout from a disastrous
overleveraging of military power in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the emergence of a post-Cold War, post-neoliberal world with multiple power
centers—expansion has given way to involution.
The U.S. political system seems to be literally devouring itself from
within, paralyzing the ability of foreign policymakers to adjust to a rapidly changing world. Unable to
leverage its soft, smart power even in its own hemisphere, Washington is
ever more dependent on the military and corporate mercenary forces that have transformed
Colombia into a citadel of U.S. hard power in the Andes. As a candidate, Obama—referring to
Bush’s decision to invade Iraq—said he wasn’t opposed to all wars, just stupid ones. Washington’s “War on Drugs” in Latin America is the
stupid- est war one can imagine. As the centerpiece of that war, “Plan Colombia”—a program, established by Bill Clinton and extended by
George W. Bush and Barack Obama, that has provided Colombia with billions of dollars of aid, mostly for the military’s counternarcotic and
counterinsurgent operations—has served to entrench paramilitary power, enrich pri- vate contractors (such as the Virginia-based DynCorp),
and turn more than four million Colombians into refugees.9 It has also fore- closed the possibility of a negotiated, regionally brokered solution
to the crisis and inflamed a conflict that has already once spilled beyond national borders—in March 2008, Colombian troops launched a
military raid into Ecuador to assassinate members of the insurgent Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia. And, while it has not
lessened narcotics exports to the United States, the drug war has spread the violence associated with the illegal narcotics trade up through
Central America and into Mexico, accounting for the staggeringly high number of homicides in the region. Much like the wars in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Washington’s militarization of the drug problem in Latin America has worsened what it sought to solve, thus providing an excuse for even more militarism. Thus Southcom—which runs the Department of Defense’s South American operations—is expanding
its presence in Colombia, recently brokering a deal that will give the U.S. military access to at least seven bases, running from the Caribbean to
the Andes. Colombia and the U.S. insist that this expansion is directed to ensure Colombia’s internal security; but Brazil’s military is concerned
that the bases give the U.S. the ability to project its power deep into South America.
Colombia serves as the anchor of a
broader strategic shift on the part of the U.S., one that reflects its position as a declining hegemon.
Throughout much of the twentieth century, the U.S.— confident of its ascension as a world power—
treated Latin America largely as a unified region, working through inter-American organizations set up
via the Good Neighbor Policy and during World War II, such as the OAS and the Rio Pact (a mutual
defense treaty that became the model for NATO). When one or another country tried to break out of its
dependent relationship with the U.S.—i.e., Cuba in the 1960s, Chile in the early 1970s, or Nicaragua in
the 1980s—the U.S. took independent, often covert steps either to isolate it or bring it back into the
fold. Yet throughout the Cold War (and for about a decade following the Cold War), Washington
continued to view the region as a single administrative zone. But today, the U.S. is
increasingly relying on a strategy of divide and rule. Washington’s relationship with Colombia is
the centerpiece of this new approach, and the Andean country functions as something like Latin America’s Israel: a heavily militarized U.S. ally
that allows Washington to project its power into a hostile region. Like Israel, its preemptive, unilateral
actions are
encouraged by Washington in the name of national security. Colombia’s reckless raid into
Ecuador in 2008—denounced by every South American country—was endorsed not just by George W. Bush but by then- U.S. presidential
candidates Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama. Like Israel, Colombia’s security forces serve as a model and a resource for wars
elsewhere. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has commented that “many of us from all over the world can learn from
what has happened with respect to the very successful develop- ments of ‘Plan Colombia,’” and suggested that it be franchised “specifically to
Afghanistan.”10 Some of private military contractor Xe’s—née Blackwater—best recruits are retired Colombian soldiers, trained for Middle East
operations on Colombian military bases; before taking control of the murderous Iraq Special Operations Forces, U.S. brigadier gen- eral Simeon
Trombitas served in Colombia.11 Recently, Colombian paramilitaries have been recruited as mercenaries by Honduran plantation owners, to
protect their property in the wake of the crisis unleashed by the coup.12 Colombia also boasts one of the most sophisticated intelligence
apparatuses in its region—bolstered by massive infusions of U.S. dollars—capable of carrying out not just widespread surveillance but covert
operations, including attempts to destabilize neighboring Venezuela.13 On the diplomatic circuit, an embassy posting in Colombia has become
a way station toward a more prominent role in the Great Game. Current ambassadors to Afghanistan and Pakistan—William Wood and Anne
Paterson, respectively—previously served as Bush’s envoys to Colombia. Like Israel, Colombia inspires many who see it as an exemplar of how
to balance democracy—a place that offers relatively free elections, with three independent (at least in principle) branches of government—and
security. “Colombia is what Iraq should eventually look like, in our best dreams,” writes influen- tial Atlantic contributor Robert Kaplan.
“Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has fought—and is winning—a counterinsurgency war even as he has liberalized the economy,
strengthened institutions, and improved human rights.”14 The Council on Foreign Relations has put aside its earlier strong criticism of “Plan
Colombia” and now hails it as a success for having established a state presence in “many regions previously con- trolled by illegal armed groups,
reestablishing elected governments, building and rebuilding public infrastructure, and reaffirming the rule of law.” The Council recommends a
similar solution for violence-plagued Mexico and Central America.15 Throughout Latin America, a resurgent Right looks to Colombia for inspiration and Uribe as its standard bearer, a backstop against Hugo Chávez-style populism. As Forrest Hylton has argued, Uribe’s suc- cess at
consolidating power rests on an alliance between death-squad paramilitaries—who have used “Plan Colombia” as a cover to execute an
enormous land grab and to establish their rule in the countryside—and drug traffickers who have decided to stop fighting the state and become
part of it. Medellín, the showcase city of Latin America’s New Right, has the eighth highest murder rate in the world; Uribe himself has deep ties
to both paramilitaries and drug cartels.16 Colombia also serves as an anchor to a new geopolitics, an attempt by Washington to build a
“security corridor” running from Mexico, through Central America, and into Colombia. Under the auspices of such programs as the Merida
Initiative, “Plan Puebla-Panama,” and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the objective is to integrate the region’s trans- portation and
communications infrastructure, energy production and distribution network, and, most importantly, its military capacities. Call it top-down,
transnational state forma- tion, an attempt to coordinate the region’s intelligence agencies, militaries, and police (as well as mercenary
corporations like DynCorp), subordinated under the direction of the U.S. military. Thomas Shannon, Bush’s envoy to Latin America and now
Obama’s ambassador to Brazil, described it in a moment of candor as “armoring NAFTA.” In
other words, the U.S. is
retrenching, pulling back from efforts to preside over the entirety of Latin
America, instead consolidating its authority over a circumscribed territory,
with a deepening reliance on applied military power . This shift is significant, and could
unleash a period of heightened instability. One consequence of
Washington’s past strategy of treating Latin America as a single unit was
that inter-state conflicts were contained; since the 1930s, most bloodletting was internally directed, aimed
at trade unionists, peasant activists, intellectuals, reformist politicians, and progressive religious leaders demanding a more equitable share of
economic and political power. But
now, with a waning superpower banking its authority
on “armoring” one region in order to contain another, that might be
changing—as evinced by Colombia’s 2008 raid into Ecuador and recent tensions caused by U.S. plans to expand its military footprint in
the Andean country. As Adam Isacson, of the Center for International Policy, says of Washington’s new Colombian bases, the U.S. is “creating a
new capability in South America, and capabilities often get used.”17 Adding to the potential for instability is the regrouping of the Right.
Political scientist Miguel Tinker-Salas notes that “for some time, the Right has been rebuilding in Latin America; hosting conferences, sharing
experiences, refining their message, working with the media, and building ties with allies in the United States. This is not the lunatic right-wing
fringe, but rather the mainstream Right with powerful allies in the middle-class that used to consider themselves center, but have been
frightened by recent Left electoral victories and the rise of social movements.”18 This nascent reaction has been buoyed by the June 2009
Honduran coup, which the right-wing sees as the first successful rollback of populism since the 2004 overthrow of Aristide, as well as by recent
victories at the ballot box: in May, a conservative millionaire won the presidency in Panama. In Argentina, Cristina Fernández’s center-left
Peronist party has recently suffered a midterm electoral defeat and lost control of Congress. And polls show that presidential elections coming
up in Chile and Brazil will be close, possibly dealing further losses to progressives, containing the South American Left to Venezuela, Bolivia, and
Ecuador, and the Central American Left to El Salvador and Nicaragua. Two broad arcs of crises have defined U.S.-Latin American relations. The
first began in the early nineteenth century and paralleled the first, youthful phase of U.S. territorial and economic expansion. Latin
American intellectuals, politicians, and nationalists reacted with increasing hostility toward not only the
growing influence of U.S. capital—which both displaced European economic interests and subordinated
aspiring domestic elites—but toward ever more frequent and threatening military interventions: the
Mexican-American War; the Spanish-American War; the creation of Panama; and invasions and occupations throughout the Caribbean basin.
The second round coincided with the advent of the Cold War and marked the U.S.’s maturity as a global power. It intensified with Eisenhower’s
over- throw of Guatemala’s democratically elected government in 1954, and continued with the 1959 Cuban Revolution and the series of rightwing coups in the 1960s and 1970s, culminating with the violent repression of Central American insurgencies in the 1980s, which paved the way
for the neoliberal restructuring of the 1990s. It seems we are entering a third period of conflict—this
time driven less by
the tendency toward expansion that marked the U.S.’s global ascension
than by a frantic attempt to hold on to what it has left as it enters its senescence—as
domestic ideologues, unchecked corporate power, and political paralysis
quicken the U.S.’s fall.
The plan creates a credible model for multilateral conflict resolution
Dickerson 10 – Lieutenant Colonel, US Army, paper submitted in fulfillment of a Master of Strategic
Studies Degree at the US Army War College (Sergio M, “UNITED STATES SECURITY STRATEGY TOWARDS
CUBA,” 1/14/10, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a518053.pdf)//SJF
At the international political level, President Obama sees resuming relations with Cuba
as a real step towards multilateralism and leadership. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made the
following statement about then President-elect Barrack Obama’s national election. “He spoke about a “new era of global partnership…I am confident that we can
look forward to an era of renewed partnership and a new multilateralism." To highlight this point further, U.N. nations have voted overwhelmingly since 1992 to
overturn the Cuban Embargo. In 2007,
184 nations voted against the embargo5 - a powerful
statement about U.S. unilateralism with regards to Cuba . The argument can also be made that the U.S. has foreign relations
with China, Saudi Arabia and other non-democratic governments while applying a different standard towardsCuba. With growing perception that Cuba no longer
With a
renewed focus on multilateralism, President Obama could go a long way to
break this image by spreading the seeds of a “new beginning” in U.S.-Cuba
relations.
poses a credible threat to the U.S., it appears that U.S. policy has changed from coercive to punitive following the end of the Cold War.
While dismissing Cuba’s immediate security threat to the U.S., we cannot ignore their 90-mile proximity to the U.S. shore. As we struggle to contain the illegal
Mexican exodus into the U.S. and all the security concerns it poses, we neglect to see the historical similarities in past encounters with the Cuban government that
led to similar incursions. So if we critically reexamine the current U.S. – Cuba embargo, why does the U.S. believe it will only lead to Cuban democratization? What
about government collapse? A Cuban government collapse akin to Somalia could create a significant refugee situation not to mention an implied U.S. responsibility
to provide humanitarian and even stability operations in Cuba. If catastrophe does occur, a search for causes would certainly lead back to our punitive approaches
to U.S. diplomacy towards Cuba.
On the other hand, consider that foreign diplomacy achieves a breakthrough under Raul’s Cuba. It could certainly hedge our influence in Latin America. According to
Dr. DeShazo, “close bilateral relationships with Venezuela is a product of Fidel Castro-Hugo Chavez friendship and does not enjoy much popular support in Cuba-nor
with Raul.” If true, perhaps having a U.S. - Cuba option can become an alternative to that relationship post Fidel Castro.
Loosening or lifting
the embargo could also be mutually beneficial. Cuba’s need and America’s surplus capability
could be mutually beneficial - and eventually addictive to Cuba. Under these conditions,
diplomacy has a better chance to flourish. If negotiations break down and a
decision to continue the embargo is reached, international support would be easier
to garner .
Almost 21 years since the wall fell in Berlin, it is time to chip away at the diplomatic wall that still remains between U.S. and Cuba. This paper will further define our
interests in Cuba and why President Obama should continue his quest for renewed diplomatic relations with Cuba. It will discuss potential risks associated with
retaining the current 50-year diplomatic policy and give some broad suggestions regarding a new U.S. – Cuba foreign policy.
Policy and National Interest
Present U.S. policy towards Cuba is economic isolation imposed via embargo to coerce Cuba into establishing a representative government. While the basic policy
remains unchanged, the same is not true about U.S. interests in Cuba. During the Cold War, stated U.S. interest was to contain Communism, the leading edge of
which was Cuba. More than anything the U.S. wanted Castro’s demise but international support hinged on preventing the spread of communism. After 1989,
communism was under siege and capitalism was on the rise. U.S. interests now shifted towards peace and regional stability. Of course, removing the Castro regime
was still the preferred method, but without Soviet collusion Castro’s Cuba was no longer a credible threat to the U.S. Not surprisingly, international support quickly
dwindled leaving the U.S. as the unilateral enforcer. In hindsight many argued it was the right time to loosen the embargo and seek better relations with Cuba.
Instead, a renewed passion to topple Castro and establish democracy fractured any hopes to rekindle relations. In retrospect, Kennedy could not have foreseen a
50-year embargo that survives the Soviet Union’s demise but fails to remove Castro. The same cannot be said about the Obama Administration today. This section
will analyze U.S. – Cuba policy, past opportunities and ultimate failure over the past 50 years.
From 1959 to1964, beginning with President Eisenhower but shaped primarily by the Kennedy Administration, U.S. policy was to remove Fidel Castro and establish
Democracy in Cuba.6 It can be argued that this policy resonates today but during the early period the U.S. actively pursued removal as the decisive action that
would lead to Democracy in Cuba. Political and military efforts to remove Castro in 1961 were reinforced by the initial embargo implementation and tightening that
was most effective. Between1965 and 1970, U.S. attempts to maintain a multilateral embargo failed and its effectiveness withered as western governments refused
to acquiesce to U.S. - led sanctions. By the time the OAS officially lifted the embargo, Cuba had successfully diversified its trade portfolio and by 1974, 45% of Cuba’s
exports came from western governments.7
The period 1965-1972, although officially endorsing the previous administration’s tough stance, largely ignored its neighbor while it dealt with the more pressing
conflict in Viet Nam. Containment and a period of Presidential ambivalence towards Cuba allowed tensions to cool between nations. This coupled with a growing
fatigue with the Viet Nam War resulted in a renewed engagement to normalize relations with Cuba. A policy of “rapprochement” or normalization began with the
Nixon Administration and received promising traction under the Carter Administration in 1977. The rapprochement period, 1973 – 1980, was President Carter’s
attempt to curtail communism in Africa and Latin America. By normalizing relations with Cuba, President Carter could leverage this good will to reverse Cuban
presence in Ethiopia, Angola and Zaire. Several overt measures were taken to reduce embargo restrictions and in February, 1977 State Department spokesmen Fred
Brown “publically acknowledged and accepted a Cuban proposal to begin bilateral talks on maritime boundaries and fishing rights.”8 In June, U.S. National Security
Council decided to end the practice of blacklisting foreign ships that called on Cuban ports. Perhaps the most notable improvement that year was to allow foreign
diplomats to occupy each other’s embassies. This allowed direct communication between countries; the previous practice had been to use Swiss and Czech
proxies.9 Several incidents including the “Soviet Brigade” and the “Mariel Boatlift” in 1980 intensified this opposition and quickly derailed Carter’s initiatives in
Congress.
As President Reagan took office in 1980, U.S. – Cuba relations had already soured. The Reagan Administration would reinforce the weakened embargo and a return
to a containment strategy under the auspices that Cuba was “promoting terrorism and subversion in virtually every Latin American country”. But strong
Congressional opposition against normalizing relations took center stage during the 1980 presidential elections. Several incidents including the “Soviet Brigade” and
the “Mariel Boatlift” in 1980 intensified this opposition and quickly derailed Carter’s initiatives in Congress. 10 The White House policy was to “disrupt and
destabilize the island’s economy, terminate the Cuban-Soviet alliance, end Cuba’s internationalism, and finally reinsert Cuba within the capitalist politicaleconomic
orbit.”11 President Reagan made every attempt to return to an “airtight” embargo but Cuba’s persistent trade with the west subverted the effort. In fact, British
and Canadian companies could conduct trade in “America’s back garden without having to compete with U.S. companies.”12 Reagan did however, exact a toll on
Cuba’s economy by preventing other nations from allowing Cuba to reschedule its debt: “a process of negotiating new loans to replace existing obligations, either by
lengthening maturities, deferring of loan principal payment.”13 This action compelled Cuba to make its most overt concessions towards normalizing U.S. - Cuban
relations. Castro removed troops from Africa and reclaimed 2,700 Cuban refugees that had departed to America during the 1980 Mariel Boatlift. Castro even
allowed a U.S. Human Rights delegation to visit prisoners in Cuba. In return, the Reagan and Bush Administrations made no significant concessions to Cuba and
status quo between countries remained.
The last meaningful opportunity for change occurred after the fall of the Berlin Wall and particularly the window it presented the U.S. following the collapse in
Soviet – Cuba relations. During the period 1990 – 1993, internal and economic turmoil following the Soviet Union’s break-up led to a drastic cut in Soviet subsidies
and trade relations with Cuba. This action compelled Cuba to make its most overt concessions towards normalizing U.S. - Cuban relations. Castro removed troops
from Africa and reclaimed 2,700 Cuban refugees that had departed to America during the 1980 Mariel Boatlift. Castro even allowed a U.S. Human Rights delegation
to visit prisoners in Cuba. In return, the Reagan and Bush Administrations made no significant concessions to Cuba and status quo between countries remained. 14
This led to a 34% drop in Cuban economy forcing Castro to renew western trade options and relook his own draconian business and commercial practices. The first
Bush Administration passed on this precious opportunity, ignoring Cuba’s overt concessions late in the previous administration and choosing instead to enact the
1992 Cuban Democracy Act reversing Carter’s amendment to allow third country U.S. companies from trading with Cuba.15
By the time President Clinton came to office, momentum had already shifted in Cuba’s favor. Cuba’s economy began to rise in 1994 reaching its apex in 1996 with a
41% increase thanks to foreign investments in tourism. The introduction of the HelmsBurton legislation in 1996 gained Congressional traction after the Cuban Air
force shot down two, anti-Castro “Brothers in Rescue,” planes over Cuba. The Helms-Burton Act created unrealistic expectations for the Cuban government before
U.S. would loosen restrictions with Cuba. A total of eight requirements had to be met and the most controversial of these included; a transitional government in
place unlike the Castro regime; the dissolution of the Department of State; Cuba must hold free and fair elections and a controversial property law that allowed
property owners that left Cuba as early as 1959, to make claims in U.S. Courts on that property. With Cuba’s economy on the rise, this new measure to tighten the
noose failed terribly and only succeeded in further alienating both governments.
The second Bush Administration did little to engage Cuba and after September 11, 2001, was completely engrossed in the War on Terror. U.S. policy towards Cuba
has changed little in 50 years. Although the embargo continues to fail despite our best efforts to tighten it, our policy has remained steadfast and the U.S. is no
closer to normalizing relations with Cuba.
A History of Anger and Distrust
After 50 years, deep-seated distrust and anger exists between the U.S. and Cuba. Perhaps an obvious assessment, but one that if ignored could undermine
attempts to repair diplomatic relations between countries. Several diplomatic pitfalls developed over the years could hinder any attempt to reestablish relations.
They could spell disaster and set an already tenuous relationship back decades. These triggers are subtle but recognizable over a long and tumultuous period in U.S.
– Cuba relations. A historical account will help identify these political impasses and create favorable conditions for diplomatic success in future U.S. – Cuba relations.
Experts argue over who’s started the dispute between nations: was it the Cuban Agrarian Reform Act in 1959 that nationalized agrarian land in Cuba to include U.S.
owned lands? Could it have been Cuba’s decision to resume trade with the Soviet 9Union that led to a U.S. imposed embargo on Cuba in 1960? Perhaps the bigger
issue was how diplomatic, economic and military efforts by both countries continued to aggravate already strained relations.16 In 1961, Cuban exiles supported by
the Central Intelligence Agency failed to topple the Castro government. The Bay of Pigs fiasco sent Cuba a clear signal that the U.S. was not interested in
negotiation. Castro answered immediately by allowing Soviets to position nuclear missiles in Cuba, threatening U.S. vital security and leading to the Cuban Missile
The underlying
fear that U.S. remains committed to toppling the Cuban government
constitutes the first diplomatic pitfall in U.S. – Cuban relations. For this very
reason, democratic reform will not succeed as a diplomatic bargaining tool
with Cuba. Suspicions run deep among Cuban leaders and any inferences to
government reform, albeit noble, will impede meaningful relations. Human rights advocacy,
Crises. These intentions have survived to the present undermining any attempt to pursue common interest and reduce tensions.
free trade and limited business opportunities in Cuba may be more plausible
and could eventually encourage the
long-term changes U.S. wants in Cuba.
The embargo itself remains a perpetual albatross that continues to undermine
any real diplomatic progress between nations. A series of coercive measures designed to topple the Castro regime began with
U.S. – led efforts to expel Cuba from the Organization of American States (OAS) in January 1962 followed by trade prohibitions on imports and exports to Cuba by
the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). 17 This was achieved by leveraging an existing 1954 OAS Caracas Resolution designed to prevent trade
with communist countries called Trading with the Enemy.18 After bilateral sanctions are established, U.S. pursued broader international support by 10enacting the
October 1962 Battle Act prohibiting U.S. assistance to any country that traded with Cuba. An early attempt to persuade the North American Treaty Organization
(NATO) nations to comply with the embargo yielded limited success.19 However, a new perceived security threat brought on by the Cuban Missile Crises in late
1962 gave U.S. the leverage it needed in February 1964 to convince NATO nations to effectively cease trade with Cuba. In July 1964, OAS followed NATO’s lead; U.S.
had succeeded in isolating Cuba from its western traders.20
Tightening the noose placed extraordinary economic pressure on Cuba considering U.S. multilateral efforts reduced western trade by 73% in 1964. Cuba was
obliged to subsidize this deficit with the Soviet Union and China between1961 – 1973. This trend continued by enticing Latin American and other western countries
like Canada and England in the 1980s and following the Soviet fall in the 1990s.21Commensurately, Presidential administrations have loosened and tightened the
embargo repeatedly as the climate between nations improved or deteriorated. The Cuban Defense Act in 1992 and the Helms Burton Act in 1996 tightened
embargo restrictions signaling continued U.S. intentions to remove the Castro regime. But the U.S. - led embargo played right into Castro’s hand. Castro accused the
U.S. calling it “another economic aggression” and stating that Cubans would have to undergo “long years of sacrifice.”22 By demonizing U.S. policy, he was able to
galvanize Cuban support during the toughest times. The embargo helped create the American enemy, removing any popular support for rebellion and elevating
Castro’s struggle to a legitimate Cuban struggle.11Castro was also complicit in the failure to mend U.S. – Cuba relations. Hiscontinued attempts to export
communism began in Africa with a total 55,000 troops in Angola and Ethiopia by 1978. He focused efforts closer to Latin America by supporting Puerto Rican
independence movement in 1975, the Sandinistas overthrow in Nicaragua in 1979 and the Farabundo Marti National Liberation (FMLN) in El Salvador. Cuba’s
support to Columbia’s M19 (Columbian Election Day April 19, 1970) guerilla movement labeled Cuba a “state sponsor of terrorism” in 1982.23 Castro’s expansion
efforts fueled U.S. security paranoia and prevented several overt efforts by the Carter Administration to improve relations with Cuba. In April 1980, an incident at
the U.S. Mission in Havana led 120,000 Cubans to depart Mariel Port by boat to the U.S.24 The incident better known as the “Mariel Boatlift” became the tipping
point that inhibited further relations with Cuba. Despite the growing tensions between the U.S. and Cuba, trade between the west and Cuba increased. NATO
compliance with U.S. - brokered trade restrictions broke down after 1966 in particular due to British and Canadian opposition. U.S. efforts to use the OAS embargo
to influence the United Nations also failed. In 1974, Latin American leaders pushed to end the OAS embargo. In 1975 the OAS lifted the embargo with Cuba and the
embargo returned to a bilateral embargo now condemnedby most western countries.25 In 1982, Cuba’s failing economy led Castro to pursue western trade with a
renewed vigor. By “1987, more than 370 firms from twenty-three European, Latin American, and Asian countries participated in Cuba’s largest ever annual trade
fair.”26
Castro’s interest in improving U.S. - Cuba relations was perhaps the greatest from 1982-1988. Castro made statements in 1982 to resume talks with the U.S.; he
took back more than 1000 Mariel Boatlift criminals that came to the U.S. in 1987 and pulled troops out of Angola in 1988 to mention a few. These rare moments
and apparent seams in Castro’s armor were left unanswered by the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Instead renewed efforts to continue ratcheting a now largely
ineffective bilateral embargo served only to increase animosity between both countries.
It is difficult to quantify, but essential to note, that U.S. action over the years seems to support a hatred for Fidel Castro that interferes with any attempt to
established diplomatic relations with Cuba. If true, to neglect this assumption could undermine any efforts to reverse our seemingly punitive approach. Perhaps it
can be traced to his support for a Soviet-style communism. After all, few things in 1960 America were feared and despised more than communism. Any country
affiliated with the communist movement became an affront to the American way of life. Furthermore, Americans shed blood in Cuba during the 1898 Spanish
American War leading to Cuban Independence in 1902.27 Fidel Castro became evil’s face in Cuba and any attempt to partner with Castro seemed equally tainted.
Fast forwarding to the present, with communism no longer a threat, perhaps it’s time to let the anger fade and deal with Cuba for its’ diplomatic merit not past
indiscretions. The question remains whether clear objectiveness leads U.S. diplomatic efforts with Cuba? It is important to note that what’s at stake here is U.S.
national interests and not the legacy of Fidel Castro.
Another important pitfall is to exploit democracy as a precondition for
diplomacy and economic engagement
in Cuba. If democracy is virtuous, then why must we exploit it? It casts a negative shadow on a
positive change in government. There is a common perception that U.S. policy with regards to security and stability can only exist under the precondition of a
“Democratic Cuba”. It has prevented any real progress in U.S. – Cuba relations because of well placed fears that we mean to subvert the Cuban government. A
popular Cuban American lobby group, The Cuban American National Foundation summarizes traditional U.S. beliefs towards Cuba. They suggest, “U.S. – Cuba policy
should focus on (1) advancing U.S. interests and security in the region and (2) empowering Cuban people in their quest for democracy and prosperity…that these
are “intertwined and one cannot be individually accomplished without the other.”28 The recommendation then focuses largely on steps to pursue a democratic
Cuba.
To separate security and stability from democratic pursuits in Cuba could
benefit both causes. Focusing on better diplomatic relations could further
democracy as a byproduct of increased exposure to open markets,
businesses and globalization. China is a good example. The U.S. has
diffused tensions with China by exposing them to open markets. Although they continue
to embrace communism, their version of communism has been somewhat diluted as they modified their business practices, trade and other aspects to compete in
the global marketplace. If you take into account that Cuba’s Growth National Product (GDP) decreased by 4% since 2006 while their debt grew by 16% to almost
By imposing democracy we jeopardize
diplomatic avenues to our principal security and stability pursuits. To assuage the
$20B in 2008, Cuba certainly has incentive to do the same.29
Cuban America position on this issue may be simpler today than 10 years ago. Today’s younger Cuban-American generation is more amenable to closer relations
with Cuba. The anger carried by their immigrant forefathers14after 50 years may be passing and perhaps the time is right to leverage this new Cuban American
generation to open dialogue with Cuba without the democratic preconditions tied to negotiations.
As we pursue diplomatic relations with Cuba we should not expect full disclosure, immediate results and a Cuban government anxious to please the U.S. We should
expect a cautious and limited first engagement that appears noticeably weighted in U.S. effort. Let us assume the U.S. makes significant diplomatic and economic
concessions but Cuba is less willing to provide some reciprocal offering. U.S. policy could conclude that Cuba has no genuine desire to consummate new diplomatic
relations and diplomacy could fail. It is imperative to understand that the U.S. has done most of the “taking” and hence will, at least for the near future, do most of
the “giving”. A steady, patient and continued engagement is needed until Cuba has the confidence to commit to further diplomatic relations.
Current U.S.-Cuba Policy Analysis
Understanding the deep-seated animosity and distrust that continues to fuel U.S. - Cuba tensions will aid us in properly analyzing the feasibility, acceptability and
suitability (FAS) of current and future U.S. policy with Cuba. Identifying FAS applications to diplomacy, information, military, economic, finance, intelligence and law
enforcement (DIME-FIL) will highlight weaknesses in current U.S. – Cuba relations that can be modified for future improvement.
The logical question with regards to current U.S. – Cuba policy is whether it’s feasible to continue the current policy. At least for the foreseeable future, the answer
is yes. It equates to doing nothing diplomatically, militarily and economically. Perhaps this 15option is appealing given a robust domestic agenda and U.S.
involvement in two wars. According to Professor Schwab and other experts however, the U.S. has lost the information campaign targeted at the Cuban people. It
has only, “buttressed Fidel’s popularity in Cuba and elsewhere, which eviscerates the very purposes the embargo was set up for.”30 It’s like the classic biblical story
of David triumphing over Goliath – the bigger the oppressor the greater the victory. True or not, Fidel has made the case successfully to the Cuban people. While it’s
feasible for the U.S. to pursue the current course there is no evidence it will succeed.
How acceptable is it to U.S. foreign policy? There are three elements of national power that highlight our current policy: diplomacy, economy and law enforcement.
It is subjective to evaluate acceptability strictly in terms of current national power invested and subsequent pay offs in foreign policy. U.S. needs international
cooperation to achieve the coercive effects that only complete economic strangulation can accomplish. This is tough to do and North Korea and Iran bear this true.
If we look at it from a broader international and economic perspective we can begin to see why it’s not acceptable. Take a UN General Assembly vote renouncing
the U.S.-led embargo on Cuba for instance; since1992 there has been overwhelming vote to end the embargo.31 In essence, it has garnered sympathy for Castro
and encouraged western nations like Canada and Spain to continue open relations with Cuba. Even if the embargo could work, U.S. diplomacy has failed to yield the
international tourniquet needed to bring change in Cuba. Applying economic force without first garnering the necessary diplomatic support failed to achieve
intended changes succeeding instead in hurting the Cuban people it hoped to protect. Whether or not an embargo can work in Cuba is suspect but succeeding
without international support is impossible. Since the embargo hinges on a larger multinational participation, international and not just U.S. acceptability is
necessary to achieve U.S. ends in Cuba.
Several embargo refinements over the years like the Libertad Act have further tightened restrictions on Cuba. These restrictions have placed a heavy burden on the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) particularly in Miami. A 2007 GAO report highlights these burdens and how
they impede other more important Law Enforcement activities in defense of the homeland.32 GAO findings suggest there’s a real need to balance U.S. paranoia for
“everything Cuba.” This rebalancing purports an unacceptable cost-benefit to the current law enforcement aspect of the embargo. It diminishes our greater need to
defend against terrorist, criminals and other real threats to our national security. In essence, our efforts to impose embargo restrictions are unacceptable tradeoffs
for homeland security.
In the final analysis, U.S. – Cuba policy is not sustainable because it has failed to meet desired national ends: Cuban democracy and human rights. Prior to 1989, the
U.S. could make the argument that the embargo contained communism and generally marginalized the Castro government. It failed however, to depose Fidel
Castro and democratize the Cuban government. A post Cold War Cuba no longer poses a threat to the U.S. - communism is contained and Cuba is still under
embargo. Despite a 50-year failure to affect change in Castro’s government, our policy with regards to Cuba remains unchanged. We have foregone diplomatic
engagement and chosen coercive economic power as our only political tool.
Does Cuba Pose A Security Threat to the U.S.?
Let’s begin by asking this question: can we afford to escort commerce through Caribbean waters from Cuban pirates? This sounds as farfetched as an attack from an
Afghan-based Al-Qaida using commercial airliners to destroy the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This scenario while unexpected is completely contrary to
our policy objectives in Cuba. The greater possibility that “something” unfavorable happens in Cuba that threatens U.S. national interests is certainly more relevant.
Although Cuba poses no traditional threats to the U.S., geographically, their 90-mile proximity should concern us. Our proximity to Cuba assures U.S. involvement,
be it voluntary or involuntary, in a major crisis. Consider a disease outbreak that begins in Cuba over a break down in hygiene, government pollution or other
misfortune attributable to economic strife. The disease has no boundaries and quickly reaches the Florida shores via travelling Cuban American citizens. This
scenario could be mitigated or even preventable under the auspices of better relations. Aside from the obvious medical benefits a partnership provides, established
communications with Cuba would likely prevent an uncontrolled spread in the U.S. There are definite advantages to having healthy regional partnerships to deal
with regional problems.
While economic pressure has failed to bring about government change, it could trigger a government collapse. If Cuba becomes a “failing” or “failed state” we could
see a huge refugee flood into the U.S., increased crime and drug trafficking across U.S. borders, and renewed security and stability issue in the region. In 1980,
120,000 Cuban refugees fled Mariel and 20,000 more in 1994 after Cuba declared an open immigration policy.33 From 2004 – 2007, 131,000 Cubans have made
residence in the U.S. Almost 38,000 settled in Florida alone in 2006. Although it’s mere speculation to presume Cuba will fail, if it did, there is no question where
Cubans would seek refuge. A failed state could eventually draw U.S. involvement into nation building in Cuba taking a greater toll on our national resources. This
scenario, while unexpected, is completely contrary to our policy objectives in Cuba. Current U.S. policy is no longer a sustainable option to achieving our national
interests in Cuba. Until realignment can bring national policy back in line with national interests, conditions will not exist for real change in U.S. – Cuba relations.
Proposed U.S.-Cuba Policy Analysis
If today marks President Obama’s “new strategy” towards Cuba we must begin with U.S. National interests in the broader Latin American context. Over the past 50
years our approach has been germane to Cuba and not the larger Latin American construct. In so doing we have isolated Cuba from Latin America for coercive
reasons yes, but also for the very democratic principles we hoped Cuba would follow.
The State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (covers Canada and Cuba) has set the following goals for the region: “Economic partners that are
democratic, stable, and prosperous; Friendly neighbors that help secure our region against terrorism and illegal drugs; Nations that work together in the world to
advance shared political and economic values.”34 To simplify these goals, let us just say stability, economic prosperity and democracy. Using these as a benchmark,
I propose our new diplomatic strategy towards Cuba must be similar - achieve economic stability, security and a representative government as the “end state” goal
and not the prerequisite for engagement. President Obama can implement this policy by first building American and Congressional support for engagement. He
should establish a formal infrastructure that communicates to Cuba and the International Community at large that we’re serious about diplomatic engagement with
we must loosen embargo restrictions and expose Cubans to U.S. open
markets, business opportunities and 21st Century living. This combination will improve
relations with Cuba by regaining their trust, improving their living conditions and exposing them to the
Cuba. Finally,
democratic enticements we hope they will emulate.
Achieving Congressional approval will be difficult although not impossible in the present economic recession. The economic benefits associated with new business
opportunities in Cuba can encourage skeptics in Congress to mobilize. As a counterargument to a continued embargo, the President can point to the dangers
associated with failed states like Somalia inadvertently caused by the very environment sanctions create. A strong communication strategy to gain American
support coupled with a softening Cuban American stance, shrouded in economic opportunity, could encourage Congressional dialogue and resolution. President
Obama can succeed if he sets realistic goals and expresses these to the American public before the media or his opposition defines these.
We’ve established that coercive means have failed to achieve democracy and economic stability in Cuba. I’m suggesting there is another mutually beneficial
alternative. Using China as an example, their exposure and need to compete in free global markets broadened their horizons and shifted their hard line communist
approach to international diplomacy. This was a feat that coercive diplomacy has not accomplished in Cuba. Yet we still have civil disagreements with China on
human rights issues, Taiwan’s right to independence and other contentious issues without resorting to coercive measures. Why should Cuba receive different
treatment? The confusion lies with our tendency to impose democracy as a precondition for diplomatic relations. How can Cuba subscribe to small business
practices, a free economy building block, if business opportunities are not available? Diplomatic engagement and economic encouragement has a better chance.
Cuba’s economic condition incentivizes their willingness to begin diplomatic negotiations. The U.S. should begin by focusing efforts to establish diplomatic relations
through incentives rather than coercion. We must also set the democratic precondition aside to pursue when the relationship matures and trust is reestablished.
Exposing them to new opportunities will eventually, through their own discovery and U.S. shepherding, lead them to a more representative government.
If we accept that reestablishing relations with Cuba is the first real step to a democratic end-state then
the first action must be to appoint an Ambassador to Cuba. This diplomatic gesture signals that U.S. is
serious about foreign relations. The Ambassador’s first actions must include setting the
conditions with Cuba to allow a loosening of embargo restrictions. President Obama, in
the spirit of multilateralism, should pursue international solidarity since some countries enjoying exclusive trade with Cuba would certainly protest the immediate
Choosing a time-phased removal would protect U.S. assets and
interests in the remote possibility that Cuba fails to comply with the agreed binational or international terms. It might also sooth domestic and partisan anxiety
regarding open trade with Cuba. President Obama must accomplish this early in his first term to allow time to reap success or
competition.
mitigate failure before the next elections.
The U.S. cannot afford to miss another opportunity to normalize relations with Cuba. A Cuba without Fidel is an opportunity – whether it is Raul or his replacement
Delaying could also signal the contrary
to Raul Castro suspiciously awaiting the true purpose of recent U.S.
concessions.
in 2013. The U.S. must lay the foundation today for renewed U.S. Cuba relations.
While a long term goal may be to influence change in government, it cannot be the basis for initial success and continued diplomacy. With diplomatic patience and a
prosperous Cuba, we have reason to believe, like China and Russia that capitalism will prevail over communism. But new politicians and a younger generation of
Americans who measure success between terms and administrations will not understand if results aren’t immediate or commensurate to U.S. efforts. Instead, the
strategy pursued must occur with a measured diplomatic optimism that insures immediate setbacks don’t derail the restoration of trust that must occur before
complete reciprocation can be expected.
Conclusion
it’s time to chip away at the diplomatic wall
that still remains between U.S. and Cuba. As we seek a new foreign policy with Cuba it is imperative that we take
into consideration that distrust will characterize negotiations with the Cuban government. On the other hand, consider that loosening or lifting
the embargo could also be mutually beneficial. Cuba’s need and America’s
Today, 20 years have passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall –
surplus capability to provide goods and services could be profitable and eventually
addictive to Cuba. Under these conditions, diplomacy has a better chance to
flourish.
If the Cuban model succeeds President Obama will be seen as a true leader for
multilateralism. Success in Cuba could afford the international momentum and
credibility to solve other seemingly “wicked problems” like the Middle East and Kashmir .
President Obama could leverage this international reputation with other
rogue nations like Iran and North Korea who might associate their plight
with Cuba.35 The U.S. could begin to lead again and reverse its perceived
decline in the greater global order bringing true peace for years to come.
Reliance on unilateralism will collapse US leadership and cause global wars with weapons of
mass destruction
Montalván, 10 - a 17-year veteran of the U.S. Army including multiple combat tours in Iraq, master's of
science from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism (Luis, “Multilateralism is Essential for
Peace in the 21st Century” Huffington Post, 4/23, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/luis-carlosmontalvan/multilateralism-is-essent_b_550332.html)
Unilateralism is the wrong approach for American Diplomacy. There is nothing
to suggest its efficacy since 9/11. There is nothing to suggest its usefulness for future conflict. In
allowing the US to go it alone, America's partners and allies risk the havoc
and catastrophic consequences that will accompany "Imperial
Overstretch." The residue of overstretch will include loss of US leadership
in the world, an economy whose decline affects billions of dollars in international markets, and
certainly emboldens rogue states. The whole world will pay the price if we
let unilateralism pervade this century.
As the bloodiest 100 years in recorded history, the 20th Century is replete with examples of how policy
and practice intersect to foment war. The proliferation of nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons and the constantly mutating dynamic of terrorism
inform our current, dangerous reality.
Amidst this backdrop of destruction, there are lessons for those who are looking for them. Seeds of
peacemaking and conflict resolution were planted which we must germinate in order to halt and then
reverse the trend toward violence and chaos. Perhaps the 21st Century could be the first 100 years in
which nations invest more in building peace than in making war.
In the 20th Century, local conflicts ignited global tensions and genocide on
an unprecedented scale, costing incalculable life and treasure. The two world wars and other
explosive conflicts erupted over such issues as ethnic disputes, the securing of natural resources,
corporate interests, ideology and religion. The international business of war produced economies of
scale prompted by the industrial, technological, and communications revolutions.
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife in Sarajevo by anarchist Gavrilo
Princip was the spark that ignited WWI. In time, some 15 million people would be killed. The sheer
brutality of that war led Woodrow Wilson to issue his "Fourteen Points" in 1918, which included the
establishment of a League of Nations "for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political
independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike." Just like our present-day
difficulties in pursuing compromise, the US Congress politicized the concept, bucked the President, and
did not support that initiative. The subsequent failure of the League of Nations to prevent WWII may
have galvanized our culture's distrust of multilateralism.
Throughout the 20th Century and until today, nations and other entities have invested precious
financial, intellectual, social, institutional and political capital into arming themselves with weaponry,
instead of building their capacity for peace. Technologies change and improve with increasing rapidity,
but those advances have included improvements in how to kill more people more efficiently and with
smaller devices.
WWII was the shining example of multilateralism and its power. Vietnam and Korea were examples of
its limitations. South Africa and India demonstrated that the support of the international community
could enable countries to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. All these contribute and form the
basis of the state of nations today.
The 20th Century left us at a crossroads: will we perpetuate the machinery and culture of war or surpass
our greatest dreams by encouraging and enforcing peace policies and practices worldwide?
The 21st Century began ominously with the attacks of September 11, 2001, which ushered in a new era
of US foreign policy and global response to war, conflict and terrorism. Rather than engage a
sympathetic world in developing multilateral and inclusive strategies similar to the precursors to the
2003 Iraq War and as was done before the Persian Gulf War, the US squandered its global
capital to pursue "pre-emptive" unilateral military action. The equal and
increasingly matching reaction is a global culture of military aggression and
war.
The resulting disintegration of the international community contributed to
the most serious economic disaster since the Great Depression. Already
struggling to survive amidst broken economies, the proliferation of nuclear, biological
and chemical weapons and global terrorism strains multilateralism when it
should embolden it. If it is true that every weapon invented is eventually used, we have much to fear if
we do not reverse this lethal trend.
Since national conflicts frequently spill over into regional and world-wide conflict, multilateral
organizations have been very strong supporters of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. Even the US
found a way to first investigate and then come to terms with its terrible policy of putting JapaneseAmericans in internment camps during WWII and apologized and paid reparations to survivors and their
children. There were important Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in South Africa, supported by the
international community. Victims and perpetrators of Apartheid who participated in Truth and
Reconciliation Commissions demonstrated in compelling ways the healing and restorative power of
those gatherings. Perhaps more importantly, they showed the world that a nonviolent response to
unthinkable oppression and injustice can foster the peaceful development of a society intent upon
making amends for the past and embarking upon a brighter, shared future. Since conflict-resolution and
peacemaking at the local or national level work, why not apply it multilaterally?
Concerned about the resurgence of unilateralism in the US's current Marjeh and Kandahar operations in
Afghanistan, former Assistant Secretary of State Gene Dewey recently noted that "it's been very lonely
being a leading multilateralist in Washington over the last nine years. Too few policy-makers have
sensed where our unilateralism has led, and is leading."
Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian Islamic countries generated the seeds that not only birthed the
terrorists who carried out 9/11, but also attacks in Madrid, London, Mumbai and Chechnya. No matter
where terrorists are determined to attempt to disrupt the lives of others, it's time for countries to
realize that the only way to confront contemporary terrorism is through multilateralism. This must be a
multilateralism that is thoroughly infused with peacemaking and conflict-resolution, instead of only
"joint forces."
At this crossroads, we can use the knowledge economy, social network and the international community
to turn the rhetoric of hope into reality. We sit upon an historical precipice of policies and practices of
sustainable, culturally responsive peace-building and violence prevention within and beyond our
borders.
Despite their faults, the institutions set up after in response to WWII (UN) and the Cold War (NATO) can
be the 21st Century's vehicles for peace. We can use those instruments of multilateralism to build the
peacekeeping, disaster relief, and conflict resolution forces that bring countries together.
"Actually, I believe we have strategically shifted from that of a global war on terror (GWOT) to
containing violent extremism (CVE). That said, the reason extremists do what they do is because they
recruit from amongst the most desperate people on the earth. And, the reasons for desperation are
strategic---but not necessarily military in nature. In fact, we have the capability to wage
peace that is just as sophisticated as our capability to make war. Water,
AIDS, mass migration of people, desertification, poverty, hunger, and
disease---What would happen if our National Security Strategy became a
multilateral one of economic engagement , and used the brain power and resources available to
mitigate these issues?" -- Lt. Col. Matthew Canfield, U.S. Army (Currently on his second tour in Iraq)
Concerns over economic stability, limited resources and security have divided us. Now is the time to
create rather than divide common ground.
Any step short of unconditional removal means won’t create the same symbol of
multilateralism
Vivanco 6- LLM from Harvard Law School, Americas director of Humans Rights Watch
(Jose Miguel, “Restraint, not force, will bring change to Cuba”, humans rights watch, 12/22/06,
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/12/21/restraint-not-force-will-bring-change-cuba, google
scholar)//KW
This reluctance would be understandable but misguided. Most Cubans do want change. If they
do not call for it after Mr Castro's death, it will be largely for the same reason they did not during his
lifetime: the country's repressive machinery, which ruined countless lives, remains
intact today.
If the international community misreads this silence, it will miss a historic opportunity. Immediately
after Mr Castro's death, the Cuban government will be more vulnerable to
pressure for change than ever before. Raúl Castro, who has already taken over the reigns of
power, may wield the same old instruments of repression. But he will not enjoy his brother's
revolutionary stature, which at times has been as vital as the repression for perpetuating the regime.
This window of opportunity is unlikely to last. Raul Castro may never match his
brother's unique combination of personal charisma and political cunning; yet, he could
easily acquire the other trait that Fidel exploited so effectively: the heroic image of the Latin
American David confronting the US Goliath.
Whether Raúl Castro can claim the "David" role will depend largely on
Washington. He will be virtually guaranteed the part if the Bush administration
stays the 40–year course of unilateral embargo and unconditional ultimatum.
It is hard to think of a policy that has a longer track record of failure. Cuba is no more open now than
when the embargo was first imposed four decades ago. If anything, the policy consolidated Mr Castro's
hold by giving his government an excuse for its problems and a pretext for its abuses. Moreover,
because the policy was imposed in such heavy–handed fashion, it enabled Mr
Castro to garner sympathy abroad , neutralising international pressure rather than increasing it.
While other governments may have been concerned about political repression in
Cuba, they were unwilling to be seen as siding with a bully.
To its credit, the Bush administration responded to news of Mr Castro's decline in August with surprising
restraint, with President George W. Bush saying Cuba's citizens should determine their
future. But if Washington hopes for influence in Cuba, it must do much more. First, it will
need to lift the embargo. Nothing short of this will work , not even the "calibrated
response" espoused by the Clinton administration, in which the US would
ease the embargo in response to Cuban reforms. Why would the Cuban
government make concessions when the embargo helps keep it in power?
Yet, it would be naïve to think the embargo's end would prompt the Cuban government to change its
ways. Instead, a more measured and multilateral approach is needed, in which other governments in
the region take the lead in pressing Cuba to respect political freedoms. Finding allies willing to assume
this role will not be easy. But it may be the only hope for real change. By making the effort, the US could
begin to reverse the dynamic that helped keep Mr Castro in power. Only when the US stops
acting like Goliath will Cuba stop looking like David.
1AC LATIN AMERICAN RELATIONS
The U.S. is trying to rebuild US-Latin American relations but the U.S. focus on Cuban regime
change prevents genuine improvement
CDA, 13 - Center for Democracy in the Americas (“News Flash? Has the Administration rediscovered
Latin America?” 6/7, http://www.democracyinamericas.org/blog-post/news-flash-has-theadministration-rediscovered-latin-america/)
Today, as we put cursor-to-screen, we were struck by a few facts – some present, some absent –that
could augur a welcome change in U.S. relations with Latin America and Cuba.
As Tim Padgett wrote this week, it appeared as if “the Obama Administration is suddenly
interested in Latin America and the Caribbean after four years of
indifference.”
Not only did President Obama visit Mexico and Costa Rica last month, he’ll soon be hosting the
presidents of Chile and Peru at the White House, and Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff for a state visit
and dinner in the fall.
Vice President Biden visited the region and published this op-ed piece about what he learned. Without
giving an inch on the U.S. vision of democracy for Latin America, strikingly absent from his chosen words
were references to Cuba or criticisms of Venezuela. He was speaking with a lowered voice.
More so, as Padgett noted, “For once the region can feel as though Washington is
approaching it from a standpoint of pragmatism instead of paternalism.”
Biden closed his column saying, “The defining question for U.S. policy is no longer ‘what can we do for
the Americas?’ It is ‘what can we do together?’”
Year after year, U.S. relations with Venezuela were poisoned when Washington confronted Caracas and
tried to divide Latin America along Cold War lines; when both governments demonized each other’s
leaders, sent home both nations’ ambassadors, and pretended neither country played important roles
diplomatically or economically in the regional or the world.
So, it was unusual to see Secretary of State John Kerry shaking hands with Foreign Minister Elias Jaua,
striking to read Jaua propose “having better relations between the two countries on the basis of mutual
respect,” and heartening to learn that an American filmmaker, who had been jailed on espionage
charges in Venezuela, had been freed. Both countries will now engage in a high-level dialogue aimed at
restoring diplomatic relations, as the Miami Herald reported in December they would ultimately do.
Even if you strained to hear the bellicosity, it just wasn’t there; another absent fact.
Here are some more. Last week, we discussed how the Obama administration has progressively
watered down the case for keeping Cuba on the terrorism list. Previous criticisms of Cuba’s record on
terrorism – that Cuba denounced U.S. counterterrorism efforts, its demand for the return home of the
Cuban Five, Cuba’s record on extradition requests, many of the excuses for keeping Cuba on the list –
have simply vanished.
Present, but subtly presented, was this finding in the terrorism report that “There were no known
operational cells of either al-Qa’ida or Hizballah in the hemisphere,” refuting a constant Cold Warrior
call to arms, to militarize U.S. policy, divide the region, and question the administration’s vigilance
against terror.
More subtly still, no one in Washington this week announced what Cuba government has told CNN;
namely, that it would allow Alan Gross, the USAID “regime change” subcontractor, to receive a medical
exam from a U.S. doctor, a break from Cuba’s earlier expressed position.
How did this come about? Maybe it is connected to the U.S. government welcoming Josefina Vidal from
Cuba’s Foreign Ministry, giving her a visa and a State Department meeting, with the apparently
controversial thought that when countries have disagreements they should sit down with each other to
discuss them.
Don’t get us wrong: All is not well. While the State Department gave a visa to Ms. Vidal, it
also stopped a dozen Cuban academics from attending last month’s LASA meeting in Washington by
denying them entry. The government may have slimmed down the false accusation that Cuba’s belongs
on the terror list, but it still kept Cuba on it. While the Vice-President asks, “what can
we do together?”, our government remains in unilateral pursuit of a highcost, low-probability “regime change” solution for Cuba.
The plan sends a clear signal to improve Latin American relations and reinvigorate the OAS
White, 13-Senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and former U.S. ambassador to Paraguay
and El Salvador (Robert, “After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba”, New York Times,
3/7/13, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latinamerica.html?pagewanted=all)//TL
FOR most of our history, the United States assumed that its security was inextricably linked to a
partnership with Latin America. This legacy dates from the Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823,
through the Rio pact, the postwar treaty that pledged the United States to come to the defense of its
allies in Central and South America.
Yet for a half-century, our policies toward our southern neighbors have alternated between intervention
and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities. The death this week of President Hugo
Chávez of Venezuela — who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous critic of
the United States among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades — offers an
opportunity to restore bonds with potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity.
Throughout his career, the autocratic Mr. Chávez used our embargo as a wedge with which to
antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up the rule of Mr. Castro
and his brother Raúl, Cuba’s current president. The embargo no longer serves any useful purpose (if it
ever did at all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition
from Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress.
An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United
States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the
Americas.
I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin
America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s creative response to the
revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic
Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies that
had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century.
Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic
change, not violent revolution. Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the
Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the
same kind of results that saved Western Europe from Communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this
effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy’s focus on Latin
America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed
the whole concept of inter-American relations.
Tragically, after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and “la
noche mas larga” — “the longest night” — began for the proponents of Latin American democracy.
Military regimes flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were
labeled Communists, rights of free speech and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed,
largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of anti-Communism.
During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and
closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the
secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military’s
responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the Foreign
Service.
The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran
revolution, turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s
the United States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins.
We armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes.
After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department
asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that
United States policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling
against social injustice and state terror. As a result, “we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for
ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception of
the national interest.”
Over the subsequent quarter-century, a series of profound political, social and
economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin
America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions like the
Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington
and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Mr. Chávez. He promoted the creation of
the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States — which excludes the United States and Canada
— as an alternative.
At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Mr. Chávez said that “the
most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony
of empire.”
Mr. Chávez was masterful at manipulating America’s antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick
with which to attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change,
interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities and
labor.
Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude
of these changes or cares about their consequences. After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin
America’s leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil,
urged Mr. Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.
Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief
stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been since the very
early years of the Castro regime.
After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to accomplish by stealth and
economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action
and porous boycott succeeded primarily in bringing shame on the United States and turning Mr. Castro
into a folk hero.
And even now, despite the relaxing of travel restrictions and Raúl Castro’s announcement that he will
retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile community continues. The fact that
two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate — Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of
Texas — are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of
Cuban-American relations. (The third member, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is
the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his power has been weakened by a
continuing ethics controversy.)
Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak nation can
prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive?
The re-election of President Obama, and the death of Mr. Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the
irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades. The president and his
new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders like President
Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of
American States. The message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on
Cuba and asks your help.
Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a multilateral
challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba achieve a
sufficient measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely
of elected governments.
If, however, our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the
emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America. While
Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual
countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a
hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern would
be reduced to a historical footnote.
Stronger regionalism is vital to effective democracy promotion
Inter-American Dialogue 12 - the Inter-American Dialogue is the leading US center for policy analysis,
exchange, and communication on issues in Western Hemisphere affairs(“Remaking the Relationship The
United States and Latin America”, April 2012,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf)
The democratic outlook in the Americas is on balance positive, particularly when compared with
previous periods and to the rest of the world . Free, competitive elections are regularly held and,
happily, the massive human rights violations associated with earlier periods of authoritarian rule have
passed .
Nonetheless, there are fundamental challenges that, if unaddressed, could spread and become far more
serious . These problems need to be dealt with collectively through established
regional mechanisms. Among these is the defense of democracy, an important
area for greater cooperation among the United States, Canada, and Latin
America.
Today, threats to democratic rule from the actions of the military, as occurred
in the June 2009 coup in Honduras, are rare . More commonly, elected
executives, once in office, centralize power and assume increasing control
of critical institutions, public and private. Checks on presidential authority
are, thereby, weakened or eliminated.
Governments in Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have all followed this pattern, undermining press
freedom and other basic rights . Although the Inter-American Democratic Charter calls for collective
action to prevent and repair such transgressions, they have, in fact, been met with relative silence .
Indeed, the charter has rarely been invoked . This inaction stems from the lack of consensus in the
hemisphere about what constitutes violations of democratic principles and how best to respond to them
. The charter should be reformed to establish mechanisms for redress when elected executives run
roughshod over independent institutions.
Although unlikely to be accomplished in the near future, the long-term goal of the United
States and other hemispheric governments should be agreement on
collective actions to hold nations to the standards of the charter. The United
States and Canada cannot be effective if they are the only voices calling for
action to defend democracy and enforce the charter. The United States should
pursue a longer-term strategy of consulting and finding common ground with Latin American and
Caribbean governments on the appropriate use of the charter, which should play an important role in
hemispheric affairs.
Cuba, too, poses a significant challenge for relations between the United States and Latin America. The
50-year-old US embargo against Cuba is rightly criticized throughout the hemisphere as a failed and
punitive instrument . It has long been a strain on US-Latin American relations. Although the United
States has recently moved in the right direction and taken steps to relax restrictions on travel to Cuba,
Washington needs to do far more to dismantle its severe, outdated
constraints on normalized relations with Cuba. Cuba is one of the residual
issues that most obstructs more effective US-Latin American engagement.
At the same time, Cuba’s authoritarian regime should be of utmost concern to all countries in the
Americas . At present, it is the only country without free, multi-party elections, and its government fully
controls the press . Latin American and Caribbean nations could be instrumental
in supporting Cuba’s eventual transition to democratic rule . An end to the
US policy of isolating Cuba, without setting aside US concern about human rights violations,
would be an important first step.
Latin American democracy key to global democracy
Hillman, 2 – Ph.D., Professor and Director, Institute for the Study of Democracy and Human Rights,
St. John Fisher College (Richard S., Democracy and Human Rights in Latin Americai, Preface, p. vii) //SP
Latin American experiences, especially in the areas of democratization and
human rights protection, are particularly relevant for developing countries that
are attempting to build stable political and economic systems in order to
provide a decent standard of living and incorporate previously excluded
populations into the national mainstream. The past record, of course, is far from
acceptable. The advent of the twenty-first century, however, appears to be a time
of great potential progress for the institutionalization of democratic human
rights regimes that would reduce human pain and suffering. The number of
countries in Latin America and elsewhere that are experimenting with
democracy has never been greater. Clearly, the path toward fulfilling the expectations
raised by these experiments is not an easy one; it is fraught with difficult obstacles deriving from the
historical legacy as well as contemporary challenges. Nevertheless, democracy and human rights have
definitively entered the political lexicon and discourse throughout the world.
Democracy prevents extinction
Diamond 1995 - Hoover Institute Senior Fellow (Larry, “Promoting Democracy in the 1990s,”
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/fr.htm)
nationalist
aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through
increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly
corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to
proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered.
Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the
weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. The
experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly
democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to
aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their
own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor
terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten
one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the
long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally
responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of
their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal
obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret.
Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights,
and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of
international security and prosperity can be built.
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia
Current Cuba policy wrecks OAS credibility – regional coalitions overtake it
Reuters 12 (Brian Ellsworth, “Despite Obama charm, Americas summit boosts U.S. isolation,” 4/16/12,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/16/us-americas-summit-obamaidUSBRE83F0UD20120416)//SJF
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama
sat patiently through diatribes, interruptions and
even the occasional eye-ball roll at the weekend Summit of the Americas in an
effort to win over Latin American leaders fed up with U.S. policies.
He failed.
The United States instead emerged from the summit in Colombia increasingly isolated as nearly 30 regional heads of state refused to sign a
joint declaration in protest against the continued exclusion of communist-led Cuba from the event.
The rare show of unity highlights the steady decline of Washington's
influence in a region that has become less dependent on U.S. trade and
investment thanks economic growth rates that are the envy of the
developed world and new opportunities with China.
It also signals a further weakening of the already strained hemispheric system of diplomacy, built
around the Organization of American States (OAS) which has struggled to remain
relevant during a time of rapid change for its members.
Seen as an instrument of U.S. policy in Latin America during the Cold War, the
OAS has lost ground in a region
that is no longer content with being the backyard of the United States.
"It seems the United States still wants to isolate us from the world, it thinks it can
still manipulate Latin America, but that's ending," said Bolivian President Evo Morales, a fierce critic of U.S. policy in Latin America and staunch
ally of Venezuela's leftist leader Hugo Chavez.
"What I think is that this is a rebellion of Latin American countries against the United States."
NEWFOUND UNITY
White House officials disagreed with the notion that the
failure to agree on issues like Cuba signaled
a new dynamic to U.S. relations within the hemisphere.
"We've had disagreements on those issues for decades," a senior Obama aide said. "They are built into the equation. They are about theater -not substance."
In fairness to Obama, the lack of consensus had little to do with his conduct or even that of Secret Service agents whose indiscreet encounter
with prostitutes in the beachside city of Cartagena, Colombia, overshadowed much of the proceedings.
He was in fact commended by several presidents for listening politely to political leaders, helping soften perception of U.S. officials as arrogant
and domineering.
"I think it's the first time I've seen a president of the United States spend almost the entire summit sitting, listening to the all concerns of all
countries," said Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
"This was a very valuable gesture by President Obama."
At a joint news conference with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, Obama emphasized that his administration had made some changes
to its policy toward Cuba already and was open to more if it saw more signs of democratic reforms.
"I'm not somebody who brings to the table here a lot of baggage from the past, and I want to look at all these problems in a new and fresh
way," he said.
But Obama's staid charm was unable to paper over growing differences with the region.
Facing a tough re-election race this year, Obama had no room to compromise on the five-decade-old U.S. embargo on Cuba that is widely
supported by conservatives in the United States, and particularly the anti-Castro exile community in Florida, a key state in a presidential vote.
U.S. insistence that Havana undertake democratic reforms before returning to the hemispheric family led to a clash with a united front of leftist
and conservative governments that see Washington's policy toward Cuba as a relic of the Cold War.
The unexpected result was a diplomatic victory for Havana.
The newfound regional unity on Cuba may augur a growing willingness
across the political spectrum to challenge the U.S. State Department on
thorny issues for years considered taboo.
That could include insistence that the United States assume greater responsibility for reducing consumption of illegal narcotics as an alternative
to the bloody war on drugs and its rising toll on Latin America.
"From the so-called Washington consensus ... toward a nascent consensus without Washington for a united Latin America," tweeted
Venezuela's foreign ministry, referring to orthodox economic policies advocated by Washington in the 1990s.
NEW DIPLOMACY, NEW ECONOMY
The stark divide over Cuba - with 32 nations in favor of inviting it to future summits and only the United States and
Canada opposed - will fuel arguments that the OAS is an outdated institution for
regional diplomacy.
The OAS already faces competition from alternative forums such as the Union of
South American nations (Unasur) and the Chavez-backed Community of Latin American and Caribbean states (Celac).
Despite the new winds blowing in regional diplomacy, economics is driving
the changes as much as politics.
Once seen as monolithic block of basket-case economies dependent on U.S. support, Latin
American countries are
coveted investment destinations with sophisticated financial systems that
have innovated in areas ranging from energy to aviation.
Chinese companies eager to pump oil, harvest soy and build badly needed infrastructure are showering them with offers of investment and
financing.
With the U.S. economy still struggling to stay above water and foreign aid budgets seen dwindling, Washington
has fewer
sticks to brandish and fewer carrots to offer.
"This summit was a reminder, a wake-up call, that the traditional way of
doing business vis-a-vis the region is eroding," said Geoff Thale, program director at the Washington
Office on Latin America
Cyber-attack coming in the Western Hemisphere – OAS legitimacy is key to coordination
Caribbean News Now 6/25 (“OAS launches cyber security crisis management exercise,” 6/25/13,
http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/headline-OAS-launches-cyber-security-crisis-managementexercise-16500.html)//SJF
WASHINGTON, USA -- The assistant secretary general of the Organization of American States (OAS),
Albert Ramdin, noted that cyber attacks are taking place in the region with
“frightening frequency, sometimes with far reaching and disastrous
consequences,” in his remarks during the inauguration of a subregional cyber security
management exercise taking place at the headquarters of the OAS in Washington DC, in which Anne
Witkowsky, the acting principal deputy coordinator for the Bureau of Counterterrorism of the United
States Department of State, also took part.
Organization of American States (OAS) Assistant Secretary General Albert Ramdin
Upon opening the exercise, organized by the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE) of the
OAS, Ramdin said, “The timing of this event is critical,” as there has been an
increase in cyber attacks in most OAS member states.
“It is important to remember,” he said, “that these attacks do not discriminate between
nations big or small, powerful or not, and can threaten the infrastructure of
our nations in unpredictable and undesirable ways. Cyber incidents target
all kinds of public and private entities regardless of political social or
economic factors. Therefore being unprepared for an attack leaves our
societies vulnerable.”
The exercise in responding to cyber security crises, which takes advantage
of the OAS mobile crisis simulation laboratory, has three objectives, Ramdin
explained. First, it “will test officials’ abilities to analyze and mitigate the effects
of a well organized cyber incident targeting various types of critical
infrastructure.”
Secondly, the exercise “will test communication mechanisms between
countries when responding to cyber incidents,” and finally, it will “foster an
exchange of best practices and lessons-learned in responding to cyber
threats, both technically and at the policy-level.”
Since the first crisis management exercise (CME), which was organized by the OAS in Miami in 2011,
there have been seven more, in various countries throughout the Americas, noted Ramdin. Today, he
added, “the world is much different, much more complex, and our exercise
has evolved to match those changing realities.”
Among the adjustments made, said the assistant secretary general, are an upgrade of the infrastructure
of the mobile lab and the inclusion of policymakers in the exercises, to avoid “disconnect” between
policy and technical personnel during crises.
“Cyber threats will continue in this hemisphere,” said Ramdin in his conclusion. “That
is a reality which we can accept. The other reality which we have to establish is how we protect
ourselves, how we prepare ourselves for that situation.”
The senior OAS official expressed in particular his gratitude to the United States for its support of the
program, which he said had made the mobile lab “a meaningful reality.”
For her part, Witkowsky said, “While the United States has seen earlier
demonstrations of the cyber security mobile lab, this will be the first
opportunity to gain for ourselves some hands on experience with it as
exercise participants with you.”
“Partnering with other OAS member states in this first ever regional
exercise will be an excellent opportunity for us to explore our own policies
and procedures for responding to cyber threats as well as our abilities to
collaborate and coordinate responses with our partners in the Hemisphere
during a cyber incident,” said Witkowsky, who noted that her country is the target of an everincreasing number of cyber attacks.
The State Department official commended the OAS and CICTE “for playing such a critical role
in the coordination of cyber security initiatives, including capacity building
and facilitating regional cooperation,” and said the cyber security program of the
Organization “has become a key forum in the Americas for debate and the
exchange of ideas about current and future cyber security trends as well as
providing practical training. The United States will continue to support this
important program and we welcome the commitment of the OAS to support
it as well.”
The event brings together nearly 50 participants from 19 OAS member states to take part in not only the
crisis management exercises, but also country updates and the sharing of best practices.
Participants come from diverse sectors, including computer security
incident response team (CSIRT) members, policymakers, communications officers, and security
specialists, among others. The event will conclude on Tuesday.
Cyberattacks cause extinction
Andreasen 6/14 – national security consultant to the Nuclear Threat Initiative and its Nuclear
Security Project (Steve, “Cyberwar’s Threat Does Not Justify a New Policy of Nuclear Deterrence,”
6/14/13, http://www.nti.org/analysis/opinions/cyberwars-threat-does-not-justify-new-policy-nucleardeterrence/)//SJF
President Obama is expected to unveil a new nuclear policy initiative this
week in Berlin. Whether he can make good on his first-term commitments to end outdated
Cold War nuclear policies may depend on a firm presidential directive to the Pentagon rejecting
any new missions for nuclear weapons — in particular, their use in response to
cyberattacks.
The Pentagon’s Defense Science Board concluded this year that China and Russia could develop
capabilities to launch an “existential cyber attack” against the United States — that is, an attack
causing sufficient damage that our government would lose control of the country. “While the
manifestation of a nuclear and cyber attack are very different,” the board concluded, “in the
end, the existential impact to the United States is the same.”
Because it will be impossible to fully defend our systems against existential
cyberthreats, the board argued, the United States must be prepared to threaten
the use of nuclear weapons to deter cyberattacks. In other words: I’ll see your
cyberwar and raise you a nuclear response.
Some would argue that Obama made clear in his 2010 Nuclear Posture Reviewthat the United
States has adopted the objective of making deterrence of nuclear attacks the
“sole purpose” of our nuclear weapons. Well, the board effectively reviewed the fine
print and concluded that the Nuclear Posture Review was “essentially silent” on
the relationship between U.S. nuclear weapons and cyberthreats, so
connecting the two “is not precluded in the stated policy.”
As the board noted, cyberattacks can occur very quickly and without warning,
requiring rapid decision-making by those responsible for protecting our
country. Integrating the nuclear threat into the equation means making
clear to any potential adversary that the United States is prepared to use
nuclear weapons very early in response to a major cyberattack — and is
maintaining nuclear forces on “prompt launch” status to do so.
Russia and China would certainly take note — and presumably follow suit. Moreover, if the
United States, Russia and China adopted policies threatening an early
nuclear response to cyber-attacks, more countries would surely take the
same approach.
It’s hard to see how this cyber-nuclear action-reaction dynamic would
improve U.S. or global security. It’s more likely to lead to a new focus by Pentagon
planners on generating an expanding list of cyber-related targets and the operational
deployment of nuclear forces to strike those targets in minutes.
Against that backdrop, maintaining momentum toward reducing the role of
nuclear weapons in the United States’ national security strategy (and that of
other nations) — a general policy course pursued by the past five presidents — would
become far more difficult. Further reductions in nuclear forces and
changes in “hair-trigger” postures, designed to lessen the risk of an
accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch, would also probably stall.
Fortunately, Obama has both the authority and the opportunity to make clear that he meant
what he said when he laid out his nuclear policy in Prague in 2009. For decades, presidential
decision directives have made clear the purpose of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security
strategy and provided broad guidance for military planners who prepare the operations and
targeting plans for our nuclear forces. An update to existing presidential guidance is one of the
homework items tasked by the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.
Cyberthreats are very real, and there is much we need to do to defend our
military and critical civilian infrastructure against what former defense
secretary Leon E. Panetta referred to as a “cyber Pearl Harbor” — including
enhancing the ability to take action, when directed by the president, against
those who would attack us. We also need more diplomacy such as that practiced by
Obama with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, at their recent summit. Multinational
cooperation centers could ultimately lead to shared approaches to
cybersecurity, including agreements related to limiting cyberwar.
1AC AGRICULTURE
The collapse of global agriculture is inevitable – monocultures, pesticides, soil depletion,
climate change, pollinators, peak oil and declining yields all mean a new ag model is key to
sustainability
Peters, 10 – LL.M. expected 2011, University of Arkansas School of Law, Graduate Program in
Agricultural and Food Law; J.D. 2010, University of Oregon School of Law (Kathryn, “Creating a
Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution” J. ENVTL. LAW AND LITIGATION [Vol. 25, 203,
http://law.uoregon.edu/org/jell/docs/251/peters.pdf)
The U.S. agricultural system is becoming increasingly more concentrated,
specialized, and industrialized.10 As of this writing, ninety-eight percent of the
food supply in the United States is produced by agribusinesses running
industrial farms that employ mechanically and chemically intensive
farming methods for the maximization of profit.11 These farming methods are further
encouraged through government subsidies, which operate to affect the supply and price of agricultural
commodities.12 Government subsidies have tended to benefit large agribusinesses13 and have
encouraged the use of chemical inputs and unsound farming practices, which maximize short-term
yields and profits at the expense of the environment and small local farmers.14 An additional
consequence of farm subsidies is the overproduction of commodity crops,
which requires that the United States supplement its food supply with fruits and vegetables imported
from other countries.15
Industrial agriculture in the United States has only been in place since the mid-twentieth century.16
Modern agricultural practices began with the Green Revolution, a response to world food shortages in
the 1940s that sought to increase productivity of land by employing science-based technologies in
agriculture.17 The Green Revolution was born in the 1950s and continued developing new farming
methods through the 1970s; these methods include the engineering of high-yielding plants and the
establishment of large, monocultural farms heavily reliant on chemical pesticides and fertilizers,
mechanization, and irrigation.18 While the Green Revolution’s techniques were successful in increasing
food production for several decades, the long-term effects of this method of farming
on the environment, economy, and society are now evident: groundwater
contamination from chemical pesticides and fertilizers; soil erosion and
depletion of soil nutrients caused by unsound cropping practices;
destruction of necessary insects, such as bees, from pollution and the
indiscriminate use of pesticides; inherent economic risks stemming from
reliance on monocrops; and side effects on humans from agrochemicals.19
Further, these agricultural methods have resulted in the loss of the family farm20 and many rural
farmers have lost their livelihoods as human labor has been replaced by machinery.21
Rapid population growth will increasingly burden the planet’s food supply
system. In 2008, United Nation’s Chief Ban Ki-moon told world leaders the following: “The world
needs to produce more food. Food production needs to rise by 50 per cent [sic] by the year 2030 to
meet the rising demand.”22 Unfortunately, the Green Revolution’s agricultural
methods may have already reached their limits.23 Most fertile land is
already cultivated and urban development trends threaten existing
farmland;24 furthermore, the effects of environmental degradation are
resulting in declining crop yields.25
Peak oil26 is yet another threat to the food supply system. Current agricultural
practices in the United States are highly dependent on oil. Chemical fertilizers currently
used in industrial agriculture are produced by an extremely energyintensive process that combines hydrogen, which comes from fossil fuels, with nitrogen.27 The
current U.S. food supply is also dependent upon fossil fuels for the
processing, storage, and transportation of food.28 As the planet’s oil supply
decreases, current fossil-fueled agricultural practices will cease to be viable
and sufficient.
Industrial agricultural practices are also responsible for significant environmental degradation. For
example, the Environmental Protection Agency attributes more than half of the pollution contaminating
rivers and streams in the United States to farm runoff containing chemical fertilizers and pesticides as
well as manure.29 “Dead zones,” oxygen-deprived coastal areas where deadly algae bloom, are
attributed to agricultural runoff and are known to occur in the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake
Bay.30 Groundwater and soil are also contaminated by the vast amounts of
chemicals dumped onto crops, and these chemicals ultimately destroy the
soil’s natural fertility process.31 As soil fertility declines, industrial farms
use ever-increasing amounts of chemical fertilizers to achieve consistent
yields.32
Chemical pesticides are also used in ever-increasing amounts.33 As pests and insects become resistant
to chemicals, industrial farmers must use increasingly lethal chemical pesticides.34 Furthermore,
chemical pesticides are applied indiscriminately and beneficial insects are destroyed alongside harmful
ones.35 Additionally, mechanized administration methods are harmfully imprecise; much of the
administered pesticides never reach the plants but do reach surrounding soil and water.36 Thus,
mechanized administration causes excessive contamination of the soil and water without providing a
countervailing benefit to the crops.37
Industrial monocultural farming focuses on large-scale production of a
single crop; as a result, land is overcultivated, crops are not rotated, and
cover crops that protect topsoil between growing seasons are not
employed.38 Monocultural farming practices have many negative
consequences, including soil erosion, depletion of soil nutrients, loss of
biodiversity, extinction of natural enemies, increased agricultural waste,
and increased use of chemicals.39 Monoculture practices also upset the natural balance of
the planet’s ecosystems.40 When we upset the balance of ecosystems, the long-term effects of these
disturbances may not be realized for many years, and at that point it will be too late to reverse the
damage.
Industrial, monocultural agriculture systems are also threatened by climate
zone shifts brought on by greenhouse gas emissions.41 Climate change will
reduce water sources, raise sea levels resulting in flooding of coastal land,
and dry the interiors of the northern continents.42 Flooding and drought conditions
will stress agricultural systems, and food shortages will likely ensue.43 Industrial monoculture farms
require intensive investment into land development, irrigation, and equipment.44 As climate
change continues, many monoculture farms will no longer be suitable for
producing the single crops they were designed to produce.45 Diverse,
multidimensional agricultural systems will allow for the adaptation of crop
and farming practices in response to rapidly changing climate conditions
and will help to ensure food security.
Cuba’s model of urban agriculture is a sustainable alternative
Peters, 10 – LL.M. expected 2011, University of Arkansas School of Law, Graduate Program in
Agricultural and Food Law; J.D. 2010, University of Oregon School of Law (Kathryn, “Creating a
Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution” J. ENVTL. LAW AND LITIGATION [Vol. 25, 203,
http://law.uoregon.edu/org/jell/docs/251/peters.pdf)
While urban agriculture was a response to a dramatic crisis in Cuba’s
history, through the development of a community-based system of
cultivation on previously vacant lots employing organic farming techniques,
Cuba has created a sustainable food production system.189 As of 2005, Havana
was producing over ninety percent of the perishable produce consumed in
its city as well as a significant portion of its milk and meat.190 With government
support, the urban gardens have become a profitable economic enterprise for many Cubans.191 Local
access to fresh foods has added diversity to the Cuban diet and reduced the carbon footprint associated
with its food supply by reducing the transportation and chemical input required to grow and transport
the food.192 The development of urban farming has also ensured food security
for Cuba.193 The success of Cuba’s system has established the country as a
model for the urban production of sustainable agriculture around the world .194
In transitioning to a sustainable urban agricultural system, Cuba has
drastically reduced its harmful impacts on the environment. Cubans have been
able to significantly reduce their carbon footprints as their food supply is no longer shipped across
oceans and Cuban residents can walk to local markets for fresh produce rather than drive to grocery
stores.195 Reduced mechanization in food production further reduces carbon
emissions. Increased urban vegetation also mitigates the impact of climate
change because vegetation has a cooling effect when air temperatures are
high.196 Because much of Cuba’s urban land is now vegetative, surface temperatures in Cuba may
remain cooler due to the thermoregulation created by the vegetation cover.197
According to Dr. Nelso Camponioni Concepción, the Cuban government, through its urban agricultural
program, aims “to gain the most food from every square meter of available space.”198 By utilizing
available urban space for sustainable food production, Cuba is reducing its
impact on the planet’s carrying capacity. The organic urban gardening techniques do not
consume greenspace or harm the environment; therefore, measuring the true cost of externalities is not
an issue. The growth of the urban gardens has created an increasing food
supply and a new economy for many Cubans without negatively impacting
the environment or society.
The plan jumpstarts US investment in Cuban organoponics – causing a widespread global
urban agricultural revolution
Shkolnick, 12 - J.D. Candidate, Drake University Law School (Jacob, “SIN EMBARGO: n1 THE CUBAN
AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE UNITED STATES” 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 683,
Fall, lexis)
VI. New Opportunities
While investment in Cuban businesses and sales or purchases of Cuban products must still move
through official channels under the joint venture law or other Cuban programs, the time is ripe
for organizations in the United States to begin laying groundwork for closer
ties with Cuban agricultural entities. Recent regulatory changes implemented by the U.S.
government provide a means for individuals and businesses to begin forming the relationships with their
Cuban counterparts that will lead to future trade opportunities. n161
As previously mentioned, recent changes in U.S. policy now allow for any individual in the United States,
not simply relatives, to donate money to Cuban citizens, though not to exceed $ 500 for any three
month consecutive period, with the only restriction being that the recipient is not an official in the
Cuban [*704] government or the Communist Party. n162 Specifically written into these new
regulations is the idea that these remittances may be spent "to support the development of private
businesses." n163 A five hundred dollar infusion of capital to support a fledging business or farm can be
enormously beneficial when the average monthly salary is only 448 pesos, or approximately twenty
dollars. n164
Additional capital will enable small Cuban farms to expand operations by
hiring additional help or perhaps purchasing additional farm animals. While
purchasing a tractor may seem like an obvious choice for a growing farm, Medardo Naranjo Valdes of
the Organoponico Vivero Alamar, a UBPC just outside of Havana, indicated that farm animals
such as oxen would remain the preferred choice for the foreseeable future
on the small and midsized farms that make up the majority of the newer
agricultural cooperatives. n165 Not only do farm animals not require gasoline or incur
maintenance costs beyond perhaps an occasional veterinarian charge, their waste can be used as
fertilizer.
Apart from additional labor, funds provided to agricultural cooperatives could be
put to use in developing innovative pest control techniques that do not
require the use of expensive pesticides or other chemicals. The Vivero
Alamar is currently experimenting with a variety of natural pest control
techniques such as introducing plants that serve as natural repellents to
insects and the introduction of other insects that feed on harmful pests
without harming the crops. n166
Investment in agricultural cooperatives done in this manner will likely fail to see
much return on the investment for their foreseeable future, until policies in both the
United States and Cuba are changed. n167 For a relatively small sum, American
investors will get not only the benefit of a close relationship with a Cuban
farm that will become a new source of both import and export business in
the future, but potentially gain access to innovative agricultural techniques
that could be used in the United States immediately . n168
Because the logistical structure needed to transport goods from large rural farms into city markets
remains underdeveloped, urban and suburban agriculture makes up a growing portion of the food
produced and consumed in Cuba. n169 As in other countries, the population trends in Cuba have
continued to shift away from rural areas to more concentrated urban and suburban areas, with about
[*705] three-fourths of Cubans living in cities. n170 With this shift in population has also come a shift in
the country's agricultural system. As of 2007, about 15% of all agriculture in Cuba could be classified as
urban agriculture. n171 Not only have agricultural practices changed, but eating habits have as well.
Without the Soviet Union to provide a ready source of income and the machinery needed to engage in
large-scale livestock production, vegetable consumption has increased dramatically. n172 Nearly every
urban area has direct access to a wide variety of locally grown, organic produce. n173
Many of the urban farms in Cuba, including the Vivero Alamar, make use of
organoponics, a system where crops are produced in raised beds of soil on
land that would otherwise be incapable of supporting intensive agricultural
production. n174 Many of these raised beds can be constructed in a
concentrated area to support a wide variety of produce, with the typical
organoponic garden covering anywhere from one half to several hectares in
size. n175 The rise of the organoponic production method was a shift away
from the earlier centralized production model employed by the state. It has been supported
through intensive research and development by a variety of state agencies, such as the National
Institute of Agricultural Science, and continued development has been guided through intensive training
and educational programs. n176
The organoponic system is not limited in its application to Cuban urban farms, but
maintains potential to be applied worldwide , including in the United States. Urban
agriculture in Cuba revitalized and put to use previously abandoned and
unused land. A similar approach could be applied to the United States as a
means to restore blighted areas. n177 Applying Cuban-derived organoponics
in U.S. cities could potentially open up an enormous amount of land that
was previously unusable. From a business perspective, investing in an organoponic agricultural
program in the United States is also a sound decision since the demand for local produce reached $ 4.8
billion in 2008 and is only expected to grow further, potentially reaching $ 7 billion in 2012. n178 [*706]
In an American city beset with high unemployment such as Detroit, Michigan, for example, investing in
urban agriculture could potentially generate as many as five thousand new jobs. n179 By utilizing
Cuba's system of organoponics, the need to use expensive and complex
farm machinery could be significantly reduced. Already companies in the United
States, such as Farmscape Gardens in southern California, recognize what Cuba's organoponic system
could achieve and have integrated it into their business practices. n180 Rachel Bailin, a partner in the
company, indicated that it was Cuba's organic farming practices that helped inspire them to start a
company devoted to urban agriculture. n181 They have already used Cuba's organoponic farming
methods to produce more than 50,000 pounds of produce since the spring of 2009. n182 The potential
for future growth in this industry is huge, as Farmscape Gardens' current levels of production make it
the largest urban agriculture company in the state of California. n183
Cuba not only offers attractive prospects for trading in the future, but methods of agriculture
pioneered out of necessity have broad prospects if applied to agriculture in
the United States. As the demand for locally grown produce continues to
increase, a cost-effective and proven agricultural model like Cuba's
organoponic system may be just what is needed to allow for urban
agriculture to flourish.
This prevents the collapse of US agriculture and extinction
Peters, 10 – LL.M. expected 2011, University of Arkansas School of Law, Graduate Program in
Agricultural and Food Law; J.D. 2010, University of Oregon School of Law (Kathryn, “Creating a
Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution” J. ENVTL. LAW AND LITIGATION [Vol. 25, 203,
http://law.uoregon.edu/org/jell/docs/251/peters.pdf)
An adequate food supply is essential for the survival of the human race . Historically, the U.S.
food system has been one of abundance. However, degradation of the environment,
climate change, dependence on foreign oil and food imports, urban
development trends, and increased demand due to population growth and
the emerging biofuel industry2 all threaten our food supply. In response to these
threats, local-food and sustainable agriculture movements have recently formed to raise awareness of
the need to pursue alternatives to the current system.3 In 2009, the White House acknowledged the
importance of changing the way we grow food by planting an organic garden on its grounds.4 In the
wake of the economic crisis of 2008, victory gardens, which were first made popular during the World
War II era, have reemerged and created additional awareness of the need to pursue food production
alternatives.5 Victory gardens and local sustainable agriculture reduce dependency on the established
food production system, but, because the U.S. population is clustered in densely populated
metropolitan areas,6 the majority of the population currently lacks access to land on which to grow
food.
In the face of environmental, economic, and social equity challenges, it is imperative that the
government, at federal, state, and local levels, establish policies that promote sustainable urban
agriculture to ensure access to an adequate food supply produced with minimal impact on the
environment. Environmental threats stemming from climate change and the
depletion and degradation of natural resources will increasingly impact the
planet’s food production system.7 The current economic crisis has increased the burden on
the government to provide relief in the forms of unemployment compensation8 and supplemental
nutrition assistance.9 An inherent consequence of the economic crisis is a widening disparity between
the rich and poor and increased social inequity between the socioeconomic classes in America.
Establishing a sustainable urban agricultural system would reduce the
environmental degradation that is caused by modern agricultural practices,
reduce the financial strain on government resources by increasing urban productivity and enabling
urbanites to grow a local food supply, and reduce socioeconomic disparities by providing lessadvantaged populations in urban areas with access to an adequate supply of fresh, nutritious food.
Access to the US export market is key to the viability of the Cuban model
Kost, 4 – agricultural economist, Specialty Crops Branch, Economic Research. Service, US Department of
Agriculture (William, “CUBAN AGRICULTURE: TO BE OR NOT TO BE ORGANIC?”
http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume14/pdfs/kost.pdf)
In addition to the above European markets, the successful expansion and viability of
Cuba’s organic production may also depend on access to geographicallyclose, high-income foreign markets, namely the United States and Canada. Currently,
Cuban produce is not certified-organic in either of these markets. Only after Cuban products are
certified for these countries could Cuba legally export produce labeled organic to these markets. Given
that many technical production practices currently followed by Cuban producers are potentially
compatible with U.S. certification standards and given Cuba’s prior experience in becoming Swisscertified, Cuba could be well positioned to meet U.S. certification standards.
For the U.S. organic market, in addition to a lifting of the U.S. embargo, Cuba would have to be certified
by a USDA-accredited certification program that assures U.S. markets that Cuban products labeled
organic meet all National Organic Program standards and regulations under the U.S. Organic Foods
Production Act of 1990. If the U.S. embargo on Cuba were lifted, Cuban exports,
once certified, could play a significant role in the U.S. organic market. In this
current U.S. niche market, production costs are high. Opening the U.S.
market would enable Cuba to exploit its significant comparative advantage in this area.
This market could become a quick foreign exchange earner for Cuba. The largest barrier Cuba faces in
expanding into the U.S. organic market will be meeting U.S. requirements for organic certification.
Tapping the U.S. market may create sufficient price incentives for Cuban
producers to take the necessary steps to meet the organic standards of
other importing countries. Cuba could then expand production of organic
produce geared to these specialty export markets. With sufficiently high prices for
organic produce, urban labor may remain active in an organic urban
gardening sector. Most likely, the viability of a vibrant organic produce
production and processing sector in Cuba will depend on Cuba’s gaining access
to the large, nearby U.S. market. Without such access, organic-oriented production of
horticultural products in Cuba will likely remain a necessity-driven way to produce food for domestic
consumption in an environment where other production approaches are just not available.
1AC SOFT POWER
Advantage ____ is US soft power
Russia and China are competing for business and geopolitical influence in Latin America-weapons deals, strategic alliances and economic ties
Llana and Downie 10, Sara Miller Llana is the Monitor's European Bureau Chief based in
Paris., She covered Latin America for the paper, from Mexico City, for seven years. She has a
masters in journalism from Columbia University and a BA in history from the University of
Michigan. Andrew Downie is a correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor(Sara/Andrew,
"Iran, Russia, China beat a path to Latin America's door" 4/23/10, Christian Science Monitor,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0423/Iran-Russia-China-beat-a-path-toLatin-America-s-door)//AD
Latin America suddenly finds itself with many suitors. In the same week, Chinese
President Hu Jintao was in Brazil hammering out investment deals and
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was in Argentina, taking the first such trip by a
Russian head of state before going on to Brazil for a meeting of emerging
world economies known collectively as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries. And if that weren't
enough, after inking a major military deal with Brazil, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates set off on his own Latin American tour, strengthening ties with allies and
the budding friendship between Iran's president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, and the region. Latin America is now one of the most popular
belles of the global economic ball, with countries vying for its commodities
and friendship. Many say the new attention is a good thing. It has helped buoy several economies even during the worst of the global financial
crisis. But there are growing questions as to whether China's huge appetite for
soy and iron ore, Russia's vigorous sale of weapons, or Iran's search for
allies in the Western Hemisphere is ultimately good for the region – and
whether the United States is missing out. "One dynamic we are beginning to see is
resource competition between China and other external powers in the
region, when we are used to the US telling everyone to keep their hands off
of Latin America," says Evan Ellis, a professor of national security at the National Defense University in Washington. "There is new engagement
in the region, and the emergence of competition between multiple outside players." China, Russia lead race Leading the race for commodities is China. On
this visit, and on a previous trip to Brazil in 2004, President Hu sought to secure access to raw materials
critical to China's growth. (Hu was also supposed to visit Venezuela and Chile but cut his trip short after a major earthquake in China.)
referencing
China became Brazil's No. 1 trading partner in 2009, taking the spot from the US, with trade between the two surging from $6.7 billion in 2003 to $36.1 billion last
Mr. Medvedev's visit to Argentina to discuss
deals on nuclear energy, space, and transportation, among other things,
came as Russia boosts arms sales to Venezuela and others in the region. Earlier
year, according to Brazilian government figures. Meanwhile,
this month, Russian Prime Minister Vlad-imir Putin was in Venezuela to discuss a series of deals that could top $5 billion. And as Russia and China compete over
markets, Iran's Mr. Ahmadinejad is finding a welcome platform in several countries in Latin America. His friendship with Brazil's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva,
who will visit Tehran in May, is particularly important to Ahmadinejad since the South American giant supports Iran's nuclear program. Secretary of Defense Gates
sought to play down fears on a trip that included Peru, Colombia, and Barbados. Gates said Iran's friendships in the region are only for show. "There is an element of
distracting their own populations from the difficulties that they have by … trying to strut around the world stage," he was quoted as saying on the US Defense
Department website But if such alliances in Latin America don't represent a geopolitical threat to the US, they may highlight a lost opportunity for US business.
"Domestic politics, historical baggage, and sensitivities between Latin America and the US really stand in the way of the US taking advantage of opportunities in the
region," says Michael Shifter, the president of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington. As the US is stuck on issues such as energy, immigration, and trade,
"China and Russia are completely unburdened by domestic political constraints." Still, if the US is missing out, is all the attention good for Latin America? Economic
Countries are buying arms to modernize armies at the right price
from Russia, but some worry about the destabilizing effect of an "arms
race" in Latin America. In terms of markets, says Christopher Sabatini, editor in chief of Amer-icas Quarterly in New York, Latin America's
growth engine
partnerships around the globe kept it afloat during the recent economic crisis. "The attention is good because it provides an engine of economic growth," he says.
The region overall is expected to grow by 4 percent this year, he says, and "a large part of that has to do with China's rebound." But Mr. Sabatini and others
say
questions are emerging over whether this is simply the economic
imperialism – exploiting nations for cheap commodities – that the US was
condemned for in the last century. "China, in the name of being a leader of the third-world movement, is saying, 'Hey, we're
helping you out by buying your commodities,' and then they are selling back ever-higher-value manufactured goods," says Mr. Ellis. It boosts
economies in the short term, but keeps them vulnerable should commodity
prices drop. Rodrigo Maciel, executive secretary of the Brazil-China Business Council, says that Brazil must wake up to the idea that China has a
massive internal market that is, so far, not being tapped. "We only sell primary goods, but that is because Brazil doesn't have a strategy for China; we don't see it as
a consumer market," Mr. Maciel says. "We need to learn more."
Cuba is ground zero for expansionism--economic and military ties are setting the groundwork
for future spheres of influence
Llana 12, Sara Miller Llana is the Monitor's European Bureau Chief based in Paris. She covered Latin
America for the paper, from Mexico City, for seven years. She has a masters in journalism from
Columbia University and a BA in history from the University of Michigan(Sara, "50 years after Cuba
missile crisis, US influence in hemisphere waning" 10/14/12, The Christian Science Monitor,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas
/2012/1014/50-years-after-Cuba-missile-crisis-US-influence-in-hemisphere-waning)//AD
Investment from emerging economies like China and Russia are
diminishing Latin America's reliance on the US, making it more difficult for
Washington to isolate regimes like Cuba.
It was what many consider the most dangerous moment the world has ever faced: the Cuban
missile crisis of 1962, which saw the United States square off over nuclear missiles stationed by the Soviet Union in Cuba. This week marks the 50th anniversary of
while the politics of the cold war have little relevance for
US-Latin American relations today, in some ways the US finds itself in the
very position that set the stage for conflict in the first place, says Philip Brenner, a historian of
the missile crisis at American University. With US influence waning in the region, Latin America is
forging ahead with its own agenda. It was not only the containment of communism that drove US attempts to oust Fidel
the beginning of the tense standoff. And
Castro from the helm of Cuba in the early 1960s, says Mr. Brenner. The US was also concerned about Latin American countries emulating Cuba, particularly its
geopolitical stance in the cold war, and thus undermining American leadership in the Western Hemisphere. Some 50 years later, the US faces the same situation,
just a more modern iteration. “What the US feared the most in 1962 has come to pass,” says Brenner, who wrote "Sad and Luminous Days: Cuba's Struggle with the
Superpowers after the Missile Crisis."
“We were concerned about our sphere of influence that
we had taken for granted.… [Today] we cannot dominate this region
anymore. They do not look to us for leadership. Countries look within the
region, and to some extent to Cuba still.” After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the US turned its
attention from Latin America as it focused on terrorism and threats from
the Middle East. At the same time, over the past decade Latin American democracy has flourished and the global economy shifted, with
Latin America no longer looking just north to the US for leadership and
investment, but to India, China, and Russia. China surpassed the US as Brazil’s biggest trading partner in 2009.
Investment from outside Most of these relationships are economic in nature among
emerging economies. If Russia, for example, once eyed Cuba to buoy its political project close to the American border,
today it is inking energy deals and selling arms in Latin America because it
finds willing partners and purchasers there. “Russia is going to sell all kinds
of arms to Venezuela, not because [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chávez is saying he is socialist. It’s because he has money to pay for it,”
says Alex Sanchez, a senior research fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. The flurry of investment in countries
ranging from Venezuela to Bolivia helps to further undermine US global
dominance in the region, a scenario that many leaders welcome today. Chief among them is Mr. Chávez, who just won another sixyear term in office, and his allies including President Evo Morales in Bolivia and President Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Indeed, the anniversary of the Cuban missile
crisis will likely provide an opportunity for the “extreme left” in Latin America to express support for Cuba, says Johns Hopkins Latin American expert Riordan Roett.
They will be in solidarity about the survival of the Castro brothers,” Mr. Roett says.
'A linchpin' in the region That kind of defiance – showing respect for a nation that for so
long the US has considered a thorn in its side – would have been
unthinkable 50 years ago. Before the Cuban missile crisis, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the US pressured
Latin American countries to suspend Cuba’s membership from the
Organization of American States (OAS). At the same time, Cuba signed onto
the nonaligned movement, and Brenner says it was that move that the US
feared other countries in Latin America might follow. At the time, US
thinking on the movement was, ‘you are with us or you are against us.’ The
politics surrounding Cuba at the OAS highlights the declining influence of
the US in the region. Fifty years ago, the US advocated Cuba’s suspension and was successful; but during the group’s summit in April,
“
leaders across political spectrums said they would question attending another summit without Cuba at the table. “This comes from [Colombian President Juan
Manuel] Santos, our most loyal ally in the region," says Brenner. "
Cuba was once the pariah state; it is now a linchpin for all
the other countries.”
Extinction--Chinese and Russian expansionism spurs development of opposing alliances,
military deals and arms races.
Nyquist 06, Independent journalist and policy analyst. Jeffrey Nyquist is a writer for Financial Sense and
an expert in Chinese and Russian military and foreign policy strategies. He was formerly a Contractor for
the Defense Intelligence Agency(Jeffrey, "MORE TRICKS," 3/24/06, Financial Sense,
http://www.financialsensearchive.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis /2006/0324.html)//AD
The strategic alliance of Russia and China continues to develop, embracing
an ever-widening circle of junior partners in the Western Hemisphere
(including Cuba , Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia and even Mexico). China and Mexico have
congratulated themselves on a strategic partnership to the bafflement of those who are clueless about national resentments and historical grudges. For those who
are internationally streetwise, a respectful silence regarding the main strategic inference is socially advisable. Last December Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao met with
Mexican President Vicente Fox, who said that Wen had chosen Mexico as his first foreign destination for a reason. The two countries were destined to strengthen
their bilateral ties, striving together for a more equitable world. One may ask what is so inequitable as to require the strengthening of this particular partnership?
The strategist and the historian will grasp the military-logistical significance, the territorial aspirations and the contribution of Imperial Germany’s late foreign
minister, Arthur Zimmermann, and his famous telegram of 16 January 1917. We intend to begin unrestricted submarine warfare, Zimmermann explained to the
German Ambassador in Washington. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a
proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support, and an understanding on our part that Mexico is
Powerful undemocratic
countries in Asia and Europe have long dreamt of dominating their
respective regions. Since 1917 there has arisen a serious obstacle (i.e., the United States of America). The Japanese ran into this obstacle in
to re-conquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you.
1941. The Russians, Chinese, Iraqis, North Koreans and North Vietnamese also have firsthand experience (along with the Germans and Italians). For over 100 years
the United States preferred neutrality, as recommended by George Washington. But modern strategic reality the reality of U-boats, aircraft carriers, long range
bombers and missiles dictates a policy of American engagement, if only to avoid the isolation of the United States by a combination of totalitarian powers. It was
combination, to be sure, that Arthur Zimmermann was reaching for in 1917 when he wrote to his ambassador in Washington: You will inform the president [of
Mexico] of the above most secretly, as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States is certain, and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative,
invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves.
The encirclement of
prospective enemies is an old tactic. In the case of Mexico, an Asian alliance is a respectable proposal. But regrettably for
Arthur Zimmermann, his idea was 89 years ahead of its time. The usefulness of Mexico to an aspiring Asian power was obvious in 1917. For this usefulness to
become effective, however, special conditions were needed. It is not that Mexico would forever refuse an alliance against the United States. If Mexico had sufficient
military power (or if America was otherwise on its knees), a Mexican invasion of the Southwest would be inevitable. But Mexico is a relatively weak military power,
new weapons in a new era, with newfound vulnerabilities
to a precarious economic system that requires open borders to continue
functioning, and you have several indications of a coming reversal of fortune. When a strategically important
country like China extends itself to a strategically insignificant country like
Mexico, in terms of a symbolic state visit, it should be asked whether or not
the insignificant country has a significant future role. In his reply to Vicente Fox’s inference regarding
and America is very strong indeed. But
Mexico’s newfound importance, the Chinese premier spoke of enhancing mutual trust and a deeper cooperation between the two countries. Our relations present
us with a fine strategic opportunity, said the Chinese premier. The typical American businessman and politician will point to growing Chinese-Mexican trade. It is a
quirk of social psychology that Americans cannot grasp that China regards trade as a strategic tool. And one must distinguish between the economic sphere and the
strategic sphere. Mexico is to become a new tourist destination for Chinese nationals. The two countries are joining together, as well, to promote the interests of
China’s partnership with Mexico should be
understood in terms of China’s partnership with Russia. Consider the following, relevant item: In
Russia, Maj. Gen. Vladimir Vasilenko, chief of the 4th Central Scientific Research Institute of the Russian Defense Ministry,
signaled Moscow’s desire to withdraw from the INF Treaty with the
deployment of new medium range nuclear missiles. In a statement intended to prefigure a future
the developing countries and to promote world peace.
Kremlin announcement, Col. Gen. Varfolomey Korobushkin, first vice president of Russia’s Academy of Military Sciences, said:
The construction of a
national missile defense in the United States will inevitably provoke a nuclear arms race.
Why would the
The shortest distance between two points is
usually in the same hemisphere. China’s position in the Western
Hemisphere, for example, has special importance. According to Gen. Bantz J. Craddock of the U.S.
Russians be interested in medium range nuclear missiles?
Southern Command, China is offering military support and training to Latin America. As Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz put it in a March 15 column,
The growing Chinese role [in Latin America] comes amid numerous highlevel visits by its leaders and other activities aimed at building military and
economic ties to leftist governments and other states in a strategic region
long-considered within the U.S. sphere of influence. Besides its obvious readiness to train Cuban,
Venezuelan and Bolivian soldiers, the Chinese are currently supplying military hardware to
Latin American friends. The intensive training of Cuban artillery officers
has led some observers to wonder whether Cuba intends to acquire its own
medium-ranged missiles (from Russia, China or Iran). A recent visitor to Cuba was Lt. Gen. Peng Xiaofeng, commissar of China’s missile
forces. According to Gen. Craddock, the U.S. knows almost nothing about the extent of Chinese
military-intelligence activities in the Western Hemisphere. Add to this the
Chinese economic penetration and political subversion of Canada and a
clearer picture of strategic encirclement emerges. From March 21-22 Russian President Vladimir Putin
was in China. Employing a euphemistic formula, the Russians and Chinese say they want a diplomatic solution in the Middle East. Of course, a diplomatic solution
means letting Islamic zealots have nuclear weapons something the Russians have encouraged for many years.
Everything here is
interconnected.
United States sphere of influence key to check back instability--promotion of regional
institutes and reforms
Wood 06, Sgt. Sara Wood is a sergeant in the United States Armed Forces, a writer and photographer
who specializes in military affairs(Sara, "U.S. Support Critical to Latin American Stability, Commander
Says," 3/14/06, United States Department of Defense/American Forces Press Service,
http://www.defense.gov/News/newsarticle.aspx?id=15175)//AD
Latin America faces security problems and threats to the
region's stability that must be solved with an integrated, long-term effort by
the United States and the countries in that region, the U.S. commander responsible for the area said here
today. "Across the region, poverty, corruption and inequality contribute to an
increasing dissatisfaction with democracy and free-market reforms," Army Gen.
WASHINGTON, March 14, 2006 –
Bantz J. Craddock, commander of U.S. Southern Command, said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "This has been accompanied by the growing
the
Andean region is the key to security and stability in Latin America, Craddock said.
popularity of leaders who profess to offer an alternative through anti-U.S. and anti-free market rhetoric." Southern Command leaders believe
Columbia has been engaged in its own long war for more than four decades and has shown tremendous success in its efforts to increase governance and security
throughout its territory, he said. Also, Columbia experienced record drug eradications and interdictions and extended government presence to every municipality
U.S. support is essential to sustain and build on
these gains, not only to achieve Columbia's ultimate victory, but also to
ensure the stability of its neighboring countries," he said. But U.S. military presence in the area isn't the
only solution to the security problems, Craddock said. The U.S. must also engage the foreign military and civilian leaders in training and education
programs, which will establish relationships and foster cooperation, he said. The American Servicemembers'
and department in the country, he said. "Continued
Protection Act, while well intentioned, puts a roadblock in the way of the U.S. training many Latin American militaries, Craddock said. Under the act, countries that
haven't agreed not to extradite current or former U.S. officials or citizens to the International Criminal Court cannot receive foreign military financing and
international military exchange training, he said. That exclusion applies to 11 countries in Southern Command's area of responsibility, he said.
" This loss of
engagement prevents the development of long-term relationships with future military and civilian
other countries will move in and
offer training for a chance to garner influence in Latin America, Craddock said. China has
leaders,"
he said. If the United States is not able to train these countries' militaries ,
made many offers, and some countries are accepting those offers and going to China for training the United States can't provide, he said. "We see more and more
that military commanders, officers and noncommissioned officers are going to China for education and training," he said. "We see more and more Chinese nonlethal equipment showing up in the region, more representation, more Chinese military, so it is a growing phenomena." It is a year of elections in Latin America,
with two already this year and seven on the way, including in Mexico, Craddock said. These elections will be pivotal in many cases, and there potentially will be
many external influences on the electorates, the constituents and the voting public in many of the countries, he said. Venezuela has a particularly strong
destabilizing effect throughout the region, he said. "In these fragile democracies, that becomes a very difficult situation," he said. "It's difficult enough, with these
fragile institutions, for them to be able to work through the process of elections, to convince their constituents that governance is a good thing and democracy will
Where there are destabilizing, chaotic external
influences, it becomes all the more difficult to realize the benefits of
democracy and the institutions forthwith." The U.S. is watching the political system in Latin America closely,
yield tangible benefits in the long run.
hoping that external influences recede and internal democratic processes are strengthened and mature, Craddock said.
Only the plan bolsters US ties with the region-Trade embargo isolates Cuba and is the underpinning factor that threatens relations—
continuation of this policy risks loss of American influence and loss of regional legitimacy
Huddleston and Pascual 09, Vicki Huddleston is a visiting fellow at Brookings and co-director of
the Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Toward a Cuba in Transition. Carlos Pascual is vice president and
director of Foreign Policy at Brookings(Vicki/Carlos, "REFRAME U.S. – CUBA RELATIONS" No Specific Date
2009,
The
Brookings
Institute,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2009/4/13%20summit%20americas
/0413_summit_americas_huddleston_pascual.PDF)//AD
Cuba policy should be a pressing issue for the Obama administration because it
offers a unique opportunity for the president to transform our relations
with the hemisphere. Even a slight shift away from hostility to engagement
will permit the United States to work more closely with the region to
effectively advance a common agenda toward Cuba. By announcing a policy of critical and constructive
engagement at the April Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, the president can prove that he has been listening to the region. He can
underline this commitment by removing all restrictions on travel and
remittances on Cuban Americans, and engaging in dialogue with the
regime, as promised during his campaign. By reciprocally improving our
diplomatic relations with Cuba, we will enhance our understanding of the
island, its people, and its leaders. However, while these measures will
promote understanding, improve the lives of people on the island, and
build support for a new relationship between our countries, they are
insufficient to ensure the changes needed to result in normal diplomatic
relations over time. If the president is to advance U.S. interests and
principles, he will need a new policy and a longterm strategic vision for U.S.
relations with Cuba. If he is prepared to discard the failed policy of regime change and adopt
one of critical and constructive engagement, he and his administration will lay the foundations for a
new approach toward Cuba and the Latin America . Like his predecessors, President Obama has the authority to substantially
modify embargo regulations in order to advance a policy of engagement that would broaden and deepen contacts with the Cuban people and their government.
He has the popular support—domestic and international—to engage Cuba,
and, by so doing, to staunch our diminishing influence on the island and
recapture the high road in our relations with the hemisphere. Although it will take Cuban
cooperation to achieve a real improvement in relations, we should avoid the mistake of predicating our initiatives on the actions of the Cuban government. The
United States must evaluate and act in its own interests. We must not tie our every action to those of the Cuban government, because doing so would allow Cuban
The majority of Cuban Americans now agree with
the American public that our half-century-old policy toward Cuba has failed. For the first time since Florida International
officials to set U.S. policy, preventing the United States from serving its own interests.
University (FIU) began polling Cuban American residents in 1991, a December 2008 poll found that a majority of Cuban American voters favor ending current
restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba, and support a bilateral dialogue and normal diplomatic relations with the Cuban regime by substantial margins.
The United States is isolated in its approach to Cuba. In the 2008 United Nations General Assembly,
185 countries voted against the U.S. embargo and only two, Israel and Palau, supported the U.S.
position. Although the international community is opposed to the embargo, it remains concerned about Cuba’s poor human rights record. At the February
2009 Geneva Human Rights Council, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico asked Cuba to respect the rights of political opponents and give an "effective guarantee’’ of freedom
of expression and the right to travel. The European Union has long maintained a policy of critical and constructive engagement in its Common Position yet continues
to engage the Cuban government in an effort to obtain the release of political prisoners and ensure greater freedoms for civil society, including access to the
Internet.
If the United States were to align its policies with these governments—with the addition of Canada, it
would enhance our united ability to forcefully make shared concerns known to the Cuban
government. The prospect of significant revenues from oil, natural gas, and sugarcane ethanol in the
next five years could further integrate Cuba into global and regional markets. While in the short term Cuba will
continue to be heavily dependent on Venezuela for subsidized fuel, in five years offshore oil reserves, developed with Brazil, Spain, Norway, and Malaysia, combined
with the potential for ethanol production with Brazil, may increase net annual financial flows to Cuba by $3.8 billion (at $50 per barrel of oil and $2.00 gallon of
ethanol). If democratic countries increase their economic stakes in Cuba, they will simultaneously enhance their political influence with its current and future
leaders. To be relevant to Cuba, the Obama administration will need to shape its policies now. The April 17, 2009 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago
provides President Obama with an opportunity to enhance U.S. credibility and leadership in the region by signaling a new direction in U.S.-Cuba policy. Rather than
continuing to demand preconditions for engaging the Cuban government in the multilateral arena, the president should encourage the Organization of American
States and international financial institutions to support Cuba’s integration into their organizations as long as it meets their membership criteria of human rights,
democracy, and financial transparency. If Cuba’s leaders know that Cuba can become a full member upon meeting standard requirements, they could have an
The United States successfully engaged the Soviet
Union and China from 1973 onward. With those governments the policy objective was to further U.S.
interests by reducing bilateral tension, expanding areas of cooperation, fostering cultural contacts,
and enmeshing the Soviet and Chinese economies in international linkages that created incentives for
improved relations with the West. We continued to voice our commitment to democracy and human
rights, and enhanced that argument by pressing the Soviet Union to live up to international
obligations. By working with the region and the international community, we can do much the same
in Cuba. But as the cases of the Soviet Union and China demonstrated, this approach can only be effective if we are prepared to engage bilaterally and
incentive to carry out difficult reforms that ultimately benefit the Cuban people.
multilaterally. A New U.S. Policy Of Critical And Constructive Engagement The advisory group of the Brookings project on “U.S. Policy toward a Cuba in Transition”
came to the unanimous conclusion that President Barack Obama should commit to a long-term process of critical and constructive engagement at all levels,
including with the Cuban government. We believe that only through engagement can the president put into place a strategic vision that would permit the United
States to protect its interests and advance the desire we share with the hemisphere to help the Cuban people become agents for peaceful change from within the
island. A decision by the president to engage the Cuban government would not reflect acceptance of its human rights abuses or approval of its conduct. Instead, it
would prove a realistic evaluation and recognition of the extent to which the Cuban government controls Cuba— essential to the implementation of a new policy
that would permit us to work with the region, enhance our influence with the Cuban government, and seek to help Cuba’s citizens expand the political space they
need to influence their future.
Engagement should serve to enhance personal contacts between Cuban and U.S.
citizens and permanent residents, diminish Cuba’s attraction as a rallying point for anti-American
sentiment , and burnish our standing in the region and the wider international community. If we
engage, the Cuban government will no longer be able to use the U.S. threat as a credible excuse for
human rights abuses and restrictions on free speech, assembly, travel, and economic opportunity.
This in turn would encourage the international community to hold the Cuban government to the same
standards of democracy, rights and freedoms that it expects from other governments around the
world. The Cuban hierarchy will not undertake openings or respond to pressure from the international community or the United States if it considers that doing
so would jeopardize its continued existence. The key to a new dynamic in our relationship is to embark on a course of a
series of strategic actions that aim to establish a bilateral relationship and put the United States on
the playing field—to counter our hitherto self-imposed role of critical observer. Our priority should be
to serve U.S. interests and values in the confidence that if we do so wisely and effectively, Cubans in
the long run will gain as well. The Way Forward It should be understood that engagement—while having as a goal evolution to a peaceful and
democratic Cuba—does not promise an overnight metamorphosis. Rather, it is a process, a pathway with various detours and
obstacles, that over time arrives at its destination. The roadmap for critical and constructive engagement is a long-term strategic
vision made up of baskets of short-, medium-, and long-term initiatives; all are within the authority of the Executive Branch to enact. Each of the initiatives we
suggest would advance one or more of the objectives listed in the box below. The conduct and timing of foreign policy remains the prerogative of the president. In
order to create a new dynamic in our bilateral relationship, we prefer that all the initiatives in the short-term basket be carried out this year. We acknowledge that
it is likely that prior to moving on to the medium- and long-term baskets, the president and his advisers will assess the impact of the new policy on the United
States, Cuba, and the international community. Based on their assessment, they will determine how quickly to proceed with the medium- and longterm baskets of
it is
important that they continue to move toward a full normalization of relations, because doing so
would most effectively create conditions for a democratic evolution in Cuba. Equally important to the process is
garnering the support of Cuban Americans and Congressional leaders . Given the strong sentiments and expectations that Cuba engenders, it would be preferable
initiatives. If the Cuban response is not encouraging, they might carry out only a few of the suggested initiatives or lengthen the time frame. However,
for the Executive Branch to proceed discreetly. The president might first announce the principles he hopes to achieve in Cuba through a policy of engagement that
promotes human rights, the wellbeing of the Cuban people, and the growth of civil society. To carry out the president’s vision, the Secretary of the Treasury will
then have the responsibility to write and publish the changes to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations by licensing activities designed to achieve these ends. The
Secretary of State can quietly accomplish many diplomatic initiatives on a reciprocal basis without any need to publicize them. This quiet diplomacy might be
complemented by a refusal to engage in what some refer to as megaphone diplomacy, in which our governments trade insults across the Straits of Florida, and
which only contributes to making the United States appear to be a bully. The president’s leadership in carrying out a new Cuba policy is essential because by law and
practice it is his responsibility to determine the overall conduct of U.S. foreign policy. In the case of Cuba, he has ample executive authority to put in place a policy of
engagement.
US engagement helps push against Chinese and Russian influence--developing economic and
political relationships is key
Villarreal 09, Policy analyst and writer for Global Security and the Voice of America(Alex, "Clinton Says
US to Counter Chinese, Iranian and Russian Influence in Latin America"5/2/09,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/05/mil-090502-voa08.htm)//AD
to improve relations with Latin
American leaders, in part, to counter the growing influence of China, Iran and
Russia. Clinton says it is not in U.S. interests to shun countries in its own
hemisphere. At a town hall meeting Friday at the State Department, Secretary Clinton said the Bush
administration's attempts to isolate anti-U.S. leaders only made them more
opposed to the United States. "From my perspective the prior
administration tried to isolate them, tried to support opposition to them,
tried to turn them into international pariahs. It did not work," she said. Clinton said the
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the Obama administration is working
United States can no longer afford such an approach, especially when competing for influence with
countries like Russia, China and Iran.
"If you look at gains, particularly in Latin America, that Iran is making and China is making, it is quite
They are building very strong economic and political connections with
a lot of these leaders. I do not think that is in our interests," she said. U.S officials have
disturbing.
accused Iran of subversive activity in Latin America, calling newly opened Iranian offices in the region "fronts" for interfering in local affairs. Both Iran and China
have been boosting their cooperation with Latin American nations in financial and other areas. Venezuela has been at the heart of their efforts, with President Hugo
Chavez making official visits to both Tehran and Beijing earlier this year. Venezuela has also been cooperating with Russia on naval exercises and other agreements.
Secretary Clinton said the United States is now trying to improve its own relationships with Mr. Chavez and other leaders to counter Iran, China and Russia. Clinton
said she is working on getting U.S. envoys back into Venezuela and Bolivia, which expelled U.S. ambassadors last year after Bolivian President Evo Morales accused
Clinton said she also wants to improve relations with Ecuador, as well as
On Cuba, she indicated a desire to make changes,
but only if the Castro brothers are willing to reciprocate. Secretary Clinton said the Obama administration has "no
illusions" about making progress with leaders who have different views, but
the top U.S. diplomat in his country of helping the opposition incite violence
Nicaragua, where she said Iran is building an embassy.
that pursuing
better relationships is worth a try.
1AC SUGAR
The plan boosts the Cuban sugar ethanol industry which will displace U.S. corn ethanol
Holmes, 10– B.A. from Georgetown, Master’s Thesis (Michael G., June 21, 2010, “Seizing the Moment”,
https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553334/holmesMichael.pdf?seque
nce=1, pg. 74-78)//NG
Another
benefit of removing the embargo presents an economic benefit for Cuba but also addresses U.S.
concerns over alternative fuels. The push for alternative fuel production as a means of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil
from hostile nations has taken a toll on global markets. The strain on corn crops caused by ethanol
production has caused the price of corn to nearly double. This in turn has caused the price of all
Creating a new market for U.S. goods and services creates a strong financial incentive for the United States to remove the embargo.
corn related commodities to increase, resulting in a public outcry. 17 Business Week recently reported that the current rise in gasoline prices has pushed the price
of corn futures to the highest they have been in almost two years. This is based on the idea that as gas prices rise, the demand for alternative fuels will rise as well.
18 Fidel Castro and Venezuela President Hugo Chavez, (a protégé of Fidel) both have claimed that U.S. production of corn based ethanol will inevitably contribute to
world hunger. 19 Ironically, Cuba may be the answer to address many of Castro’s criticisms. U.S. consumption of corn-based ethanol production has forced corn
corn-based ethanol is, “not a
renewable energy resource, is not an economical fuel and its production and use
contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming.” It takes just under 6 pounds
demand to outpace supply. In 2005 the U.S. Department of agriculture concluded that
of corn to produce 1 liter, (a little over a quarter gallon), of ethanol. It cost approximately six times as much to produce a liter of ethanol versus a liter of gasoline.
The increased production of ethanol has driven up the price of corn, which has inevitably driven up the price of other food products. Corn is the principal feed for
various livestock. Demand for corn for fuel, increases demand for corn and the cost of feed for livestock. It is estimated that corn-based ethanol production has
increased the cost of beef production by over a $1 billion dollars. Ethanol production is also overtaking land resources. To produce a little more than 300 gallons of
ethanol a year, .06 hectare, (64, 583 sq ft), of corn must be planted and harvested. It takes .05 hectare, (5,382 sq ft), to feed every American each year. To fill up a
car with a fuel mixture that is only one-third ethanol every year would utilize more land than it would take to feed every American citizen in a year. 20 Corn-base
ethanol is an unsustainable fuel source. This obvious drawback to the move to corn-based ethanol prompted former President George W. Bush to meet with
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil. Over the past thirty years Brazil has successfully managed to create an alternative to gasoline by refining sugar into
Sugar-based ethanol production is far more efficient than corn-based
ethanol and does not affect the global food market to such a severe degree. 21
Although the United States will be able to develop and apply the technology to
produce the ethanol, it is unlikely it will able to cultivate the volume of
sugar necessary to meet fuel demands. Historically the United States has only contributed less than 10 percent to the
global sugar market.22 Cuba can play a key role in U.S. fuel production and national security. As a result of
the U.S. embargo and the fall of the Soviet Union Cuba has had to actually reduce its sugar production .
In 2002 the Cuban government closed more than 70 sugar mills and reduced the
amount of land allocated to sugarcane cultivation. 23 Those mills alone had
the capacity to process nearly 15 million tons of sugar. This sugar could have
potentially been processed into tens of thousands of gallons of ethanol. Although
ethanol.
Cuba has scaled back sugar production, it has reconfigured several of the remaining mills to not only process sugar but to use the sugar cane residue to actually
generate electricity to power the mills. In Remedios, Cuba the Heriberto Duquesne Mill has already utilized Brazilian ethanol production technology. It is currently
producing more than 13,000 gallons of ethanol a day.
Removing the embargo will revive a once bustling Cuban
sugar market . The increased production will cause the Cuban government to
reopen sugar production facilities, which will create jobs and reinvigorate
the Cuban economy. The increase in trade and investment will stimulate
Cuba's technology sector and potentially increase the ease and volume of
ethanol production.
High corn ethanol demand will deplete the Ogallala Aquifer
Specht, 13 – Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc., B.A., LSU (Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and
Environmental Effects on the United States”, UC Davis, 4-24-13, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf)//NG
In addition to habitat destruction, water
consumption is another environmental
consequence resulting from the expansion of corn production in Great
Plains states. The approximate line dividing the portion of the United States that requires irrigation for agriculture and the portion
that has sufficient rainfall for non-irrigated agriculture, the 100th Meridian West of longitude, runs through the Dakotas and Nebraska.
Therefore, unlike agriculture in the states that form the center of the Corn Belt, Iowa and Illinois, agriculture in Nebraska and the Dakotas
depends to significant degree upon irrigation. The difference in water consumption between the corn growers of Nebraska on one hand and
those of Iowa and Illinois on the other is dramatic. In 2007, of 9,192,656 acres of total corn production in Nebraska, 5,839,067 acres were
irrigated, representing 63% of the total. This fact is particularly significant because much
of Nebraska gets its water
from the Ogallala Aquifer, a resource of vital environmental and economic
importance to the United States that stretches from Texas to South Dakota. Aquifers,
geological formations that store water underground, continue to provide water as long as the amount of water that flows into them from
above ground exceeds the amount of water that is withdrawn from them. If
the amount of water withdrawn
from an aquifer exceeds the amount of water that recharges an aquifer,
however, the aquifer will be depleted. Completely depleting the Ogallala Aquifer
would have devastating consequences for the United States. According to Scientific American,
losing the ability to irrigate land from the Ogallala Aquifer would cause $20
billion worth of agricultural losses, and re-filling the aquifer would take
6,000 years. Because the industry encourages increased corn production in
areas irrigated with water from the Ogallala Aquifer, the depletion of this
aquifer must be counted as another detrimental environmental effect of the
domestic corn-based ethanol industry.
Threatens peak water which leads to food shortage and water wars
Brown ’13- president of the Earth Policy Institute and author of Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity (Lester,
“'The real threat to our future is peak water'”, the guardian, July 10 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/jul/06/watersupplies-shrinking-threat-to-food) //CW
In the US, farmers are over-pumping in the Great Plains, including in several leading grain-producing states such as Texas,
Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska. In these states, irrigation has not only raised wheat yields but it has also enabled a
shift from wheat to corn, a much higher-yielding crop. Kansas, for example, long known as the leading wheat state, now
produces more corn than wheat. Irrigated agriculture has thrived in these states, but the water is drawn from the
Ogallala aquifer, a huge underground water body that stretches from Nebraska southwards to the Texas
Panhandle. It is, unfortunately, a fossil aquifer, one that does not recharge. Once it is depleted, the wells
go dry and farmers either go back to dryland farming or abandon farming altogether, depending on local
conditions. In Texas, a large grain and cattle state, whose northern part overlies the shallow end of the
Ogallala, irrigated grain area peaked in 1975. Since then it has shrunk by two-thirds, with the most
precipitous drop in recent years. In Kansas the peak came in 1982 and irrigated grain area has since
fallen 41%. Nebraska, now also a leading corn-producing state, saw its irrigated area peak most recently, in
2007. Even though aquifer depletion is reducing grain output in several key states, it is not yet sufficient to reduce the overall US grain harvest,
the bulk of which is produced in the rain-fed Midwestern Corn Belt. At the international level, water
conflicts, such as the one in
the Nile river basin between Egypt and the upstream countries, make the news. But within countries it is
the competition for water between cities and farms that preoccupies political leaders. Indeed, in many
countries farmers now face not only a shrinking water supply as aquifers are pumped dry, but also a
shrinking share of that shrinking supply.
Water wars cause global nuclear conflict
NASCA 2006 – the National Association for Scientific & Cultural Appreciation (“Water Shortages – Only A
Matter Of Time.” http://www.nasca.org.uk/Strange_relics_/water/water.html)
Water is one of the prime essentials for life as we know it. The
plain fact is – no water, no life! This becomes all the more worrying
when we realise that the worlds supply of drinkable water will soon diminish quite rapidly. In fact a recent report
commissioned by the United Nations has emphasised that by the year 2025 at least 66% of the worlds population will
be without an adequate water supply. As a disaster in the making water shortage ranks in the top
category. Without water we are finished, and it is thus imperative that we protect the mechanism
through which we derive our supply of this life giving fluid. Unfortunately the exact opposite is the case. We are doing
incalculable damage to the planets capacity to generate water and this will have far ranging consequences for the not too distant future. The
United Nations has warned that burning of fossil fuels is the prime cause of water shortage. While there may be other reasons such as
increased solar activity it is clear that this is a situation over which we can exert a great deal of control. If not then the future will be very bleak
indeed! Already the warning signs are there. The last year has seen devastating heatwaves in many parts of the world including the USA where
the state of Texas experienced its worst drought on record. Elsewhere in the United States forest fires raged out of control, while other regions
of the globe experienced drought conditions that were even more severe. Parts of Iran, Afgahnistan, China and other neighbouring countries
experienced their worst droughts on record. These
conditions also extended throughout many parts of Africa and it is
circumstances remain unchanged we are facing a disaster of epic proportions. Moreover it will be one
for which there is no easy answer. The spectre of a world water shortage evokes a truly frightening scenario. In fact
the United Nations warns that disputes over water will become the prime source of conflict in the not too
distant future. Where these shortages become ever more acute it could forseeably lead to the brink of
nuclear conflict. On a lesser scale water, and the price of it, will acquire an importance somewhat like the current value placed on oil. The
difference of course is that while oil is not vital for life, water most certainly is! It seems clear then that in future years
countries rich in water will enjoy an importance that perhaps they do not have today. In these
circumstances power shifts are inevitable, and this will undoubtedly create its own strife and tension. In
the long term the implications do not look encouraging. It is a two edged sword. First the shortage of water, and then
the increased stresses this will impose upon an already stressed world of politics. It means that answers
need to be found immediately. Answers that will both ameliorate the damage to the environment, and also find new sources of
water for future consumption. If not, and the problem is left unresolved there will eventually come the day
when we shall find ourselves with a nightmare situation for which there will be no obvious answer.
clear that if
Collapsing global water supply causes extinction
Marlow, 01 – National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and IFG Committee on the Globalization
of Water. (Maude, “BLUE GOLD: The Global Water Crisis and the Commodification of the World's Water
Supply,” http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BlueGold.pdf.
Perhaps the
most devastating analysis of the global water crisis comes from hydrological engineer Michal
Kravèík and his team of scientists at the Slovakia non-governmental organization (NGO) People and Water. Kravèík, who has a distinguished career with the
Slovak Academy of Sciences, has studied the effect of urbanization, industrial agriculture, deforestation, dam construction, and infrastructure and paving on water
systems in Slovakia and surrounding countries and has come up with an alarming finding. Destroying
water's natural habitat not only
creates a supply crisis for people and animals, it also dramatically diminishes the amount of available
fresh water on the planet. Kravèík describes the hydrologic cycle of a drop of water. It must first evaporate from a plant, earth surface, swamp, river,
lake or the sea, then fall back down to earth as precipitation. If the drop of water falls back onto a forest, lake, blade of grass, meadow or field, it cooperates with
nature to return to the hydrologic cycle. "Right of domicile of a drop is one of the basic rights, a more serious right than human rights," says Kravèík. However, if
the earth's surface is paved over, denuded of forests and meadows, and drained of natural springs and creeks, the drop will not form part of river basins and
continental watersheds, where it is needed by people and animals, but head out to sea, where it will be stored. It is like rain falling onto a huge roof, or umbrella;
everything underneath stays dry and the water runs off to the perimeter. The
consequent reduction in continental water basins
results in reduced water evaporation from the earth's surface, and becomes a net loss, while the seas
begin to rise. In Slovakia, the scientists found, for every 1 percent of roofing, paving, car parks and highways constructed, water supplies decrease in volume
by more than 100 billion meters per year. Kravèík issues a dire warning about the growing number of what he calls the
earth's "hot stains"—places already drained of water. The "drying out" of the earth will cause massive
global warming, with the attendant extremes in weather: drought, decreased protection from the
atmosphere, increased solar radiation, decreased biodiversity, melting of the polar icecaps, submersion of vast
territories, massive continental desertification and, eventually, "global collapse."
Food insecurity due to shortage will redraw the geopolitical map and cause a huge wave of
food wars
Ikerd 2002 – Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics @ University of Missouri (John E. Ikerd,
“Small Farms: The Foundation for Long-Run Food Security,” Presented at “A Time to Act: Providing
Educators with Resources to Address Small Farm Issues,” sponsored by University of Illinois,
Agroecology/Sustainable Agriculture Program, Effingham and Peoria, IL, Nov. 13-14, 2002, pg.
http://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/IllSmall.html)
Economists argue we need not be concerned about becoming dependent upon the rest of the world for our food. They suggest it is only logical that America moves
beyond farming in the new global era of economic development, that we have higher valued uses for our land and labor resources. We will be even better fed at a
a nation that can’t feed itself is
no more secure than is a nation that can’t defend itself. Perhaps we won’t abandon agriculture completely, but we could
easily become as dependent on the rest of the world for our food as we are today for our oil. Perhaps,
we can keep our food imports flowing, as we do for oil, but how large a military force will it take, how many “small wars” will
we have to fight, and how many people will be killed.
lower cost, they say, because food can now be produced cheaper elsewhere in the world. But in times of crisis,
Many consumers, members of the public, seem to agree with the economists. They don’t see anything wrong with a corporately controlled, industrial agriculture,
and they are not particularly concerned. As long as the corporations can give them food that is quick, convenient, and cheap, they are not going to ask too many
questions. They aren’t all that concerned about where their food comes from, who produces it, how it is produced, and what the consequences are for rural people
and for the land. Many trust the competitive forces of a “global free market” economy to ensure that the needs of society are met.
However, a growing number of people are concerned about the corporate industrialization of agriculture. They are concerned about what it is doing to the lives of
farm families who are losing control of land that has been in their families for generations. They are concerned about people in rural communities who have
supported and been supported by those family farms. They are concerned about the low-pay and long hours in the food processing factories that have moved into
some of these chronically depressed rural areas. They are concerned about the landfills, toxic waste dumps, and giant livestock feeding operations that pollute the
once pristine rural environment with dangerous chemicals, biological wastes, and hazardous stench. They are concerned about the ability of the soil to continue to
produce after the topsoil is eroded and it is saturated with chemicals and about the quality of water subjected to similar abuses. They are concerned about the
safety of their food and safety of the people who work to produce it. They are concerned about the negative impacts of an industrial agriculture on the people who
farm the land, who live in rural areas, who eat the food. They are concerned about those of future generations who will still be as dependent upon the land for
their sustenance, their very survival, as we are today. They are concerned about the sustainability of agriculture.
This growing concern for agricultural sustainability is raising some “common sense” questions about our food system. It asks, how can we equitably meet the needs
of people in the present, while leaving equal or better opportunities for those of the future – not just how can we make food quick, convenient, and cheap? It asks,
how can we develop an agriculture that is ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially responsible – not just how can we make agriculture more
economically efficient? It asks, how can we ensure our long run food security – not just our current abundance? Sustainability asks how can we sustain a desirable
quality of human life on this earth, individually, socially, and ethically – both for ourselves and for those of future generations?
Sustainable farming systems must be ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially responsible. All three are essential; more of one cannot offset a lack of
either of the other two. The three dimensions of sustainability are not a part of some formal or legal definition, but instead, are a matter of common sense. If the
land loses its ability to produce, the farm is not sustainable. If the farmer goes broke, the farm is not sustainable. And if a system of farming fails to support society,
it will not be supported by society, and thus, is not sustainable. The economic, ecological, and social dimensions of sustainability are like the three dimensions of a
box. All are necessary. A box that is lacking in height, width, or length, quite simply is not a box. A farming system that is lacking in ecological integrity, economic
viability, or social responsibility, quite simply is not sustainable.
There is growing evidence that current concerns for the sustainability of agriculture are well founded – that a corporate industrial food system, in fact, is not
sustainable. The threats to the natural environment and to the quality of life of farmers, rural residents, and members of society as a whole have continually risen
as we have industrialized American agriculture. The same technologies that support our specialized, standardized, large-scale farming systems are now the primary
sources of growing environmental degradation. Commercial fertilizers and pesticides – essential elements in a specialized, industrialized agriculture – have become
a primary source of growing concerns for environmental degradation and food safety. And, industrialization has transformed agriculture, created for the
fundamental purpose of converting solar energy to human-useful form, into a mechanized agriculture that uses more non-renewable fossil energy than it captures
in solar energy from the sun.
The long run food security of America ultimately depends on the sustainability of its agriculture.
Once a
nation depletes or destroys the productivity of its agricultural base – its soils, its irrigation aquifers, its biological diversity, its agricultural knowledge base, its
farming culture – its food supply is no longer secure. If such a
nation is strong militarily, it must be willing to go to war to ensure its
food supplies. If such a nation is weak militarily, it is continually subject to “blackmail” from food producing nations. A nation without
sufficient agricultural resources is more vulnerable than a nation without sufficient energy resources.
People can live without gasoline but not without food. A nation that allows its agricultural resources to be exploited for short-run
economic gains is more foolish than a nation that exploits its energy reserves to ensure the wealth of its leaders. Fossil fuels are non-renewable, and thus,
eventually will be depleted. It’s just a matter of when. Agricultural resources, on the other hand, are regenerative and renewable – if they are nurtured, cared for,
The long run security of any nation depends on its willingness and ability to ensure the
sustainability of its food and farming systems.
and conserved.
It also causes fertilizer runoff and dead zones
Specht, 13 – Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc., B.A., LSU (Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and
Environmental Effects on the United States”, UC Davis, 4-24-13, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf)//NG
, the domestic ethanol industry
encourages farmers to use the same piece of land to grow corn year after
year. According to a report in Iowa Ag Review, growing corn on the same land in successive years
rather than rotating it with soybeans significantly increases the climate change
effects of corn production because “nitrogen fertilizer applications are
typically 50 pounds per acre higher for corn planted after corn” and
“nitrous oxide has a global warming potential more than 300 times that of
[carbon dioxide].” Additionally, the application of fossil fuel-derived nitrogen
fertilizer has other environmental impacts beyond exacerbating climate change. The so-called
Dead Zone, a region of the Gulf of Mexico where the collective nitrogen
runoff of the Mississippi River basin has caused a process called hypoxia to
kill off most marine life, has been linked to corn production and thus to the domestic ethanol
By boosting the price of corn relative to other crops like soybeans, however
industry.
Dead zones wreck marine life
Lochhead ’10- writer for the Chronicle Washington Bureau (Carolyn, “Dead zone in gulf linked to ethanol production”, SF Gate, July 6 2010,
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Dead-zone-in-gulf-linked-to-ethanol-production-3183032.php) //CW
While the BP oil spill has been labeled the worst environmental catastrophe in recent U.S. history, a
biofuel is contributing to a Gulf
of Mexico "dead zone" the size of New Jersey that scientists say could be every bit as harmful to the
gulf. Each year, nitrogen used to fertilize corn, about a third of which is made into ethanol, leaches from
Midwest croplands into the Mississippi River and out into the gulf, where the fertilizer feeds giant algae
blooms. As the algae dies, it settles to the ocean floor and decays, consuming oxygen and suffocating
marine life. Known as hypoxia, the oxygen depletion kills shrimp, crabs, worms and anything else that
cannot escape. The dead zone has doubled since the 1980s and is expected this year to grow as large as 8,500 square
miles and hug the Gulf Coast from Alabama to Texas. As to which is worse, the oil spill or the hypoxia, "it's a really tough
call," said Nathaniel Ostrom, a zoologist at Michigan State University. "There's no real answer to that question." Some scientists fear the oil spill
will worsen the dead zone, because when oil decomposes, it also consumes oxygen. New government estimates on Thursday indicated that the
BP oil spill had gushed as much as 141 million gallons since an oil-rig explosion and well blowout on April 20 that killed 11 workers. Corn is
biggest culprit The gulf dead zone is the second-largest in the world, after one in the Baltic Sea. Scientists
say the biggest culprit is
industrial-scale corn production. Corn growers are heavy users of both nitrogen and pesticides. Vast
monocultures of corn and soybeans, both subsidized by the federal government, have displaced
diversified farms and grasslands throughout the Mississippi Basin. "The subsidies are driving farmers
toward more corn," said Gene Turner, a zoologist at Louisiana State University. "More nitrate comes off
corn fields than it does off of any other crop by far. And nitrogen is driving the formation of the dead
zone." The dead zone, he said, is "a symptom of the homogenization of the landscape. We just have a
few crops on what used to have all kinds of different vegetation." In 2007, Congress passed a renewable fuels standard
that requires ethanol production to triple in the next 12 years. The Department of Agriculture has just rolled out a plan to meet that goal,
including building ethanol refineries in every state. The Environmental Protection Agency will decide soon whether to increase the amount of
ethanol in gasoline blends from 10 percent to 15 percent. A 2008 National
Research Council report warned of a
"considerable" increase in damage to the gulf if ethanol production is increased.
All life depends on healthy oceans.
NOAA 1998 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1998 Year of the Ocean Report,
http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/yoto/meeting/mar_env_316.html)
<The ocean plays a critical role in sustaining the life of this planet. Every activity, whether natural or anthropogenic, has
far reaching impacts on the world at large. For example, excessive emissions of greenhouse gases may contribute to an increase the sea level, and cause potential flooding or
an increase in storm frequency; this flooding can reduce wetland acreage and increase sediment and nutrient flows into the Gulf of Mexico, causing adverse impacts on water quality and reducing habitat for
commercial fisheries. This in turn drives up the cost of fish at local markets nationwide.
The environment and the economic health of marine and coastal waters are linked at the individual, community,
state, regional, national and international levels. The interdependence of the economy and the environment are
widely recognized. The United States has moved beyond viewing health, safety, and pollution control as additional costs of doing business to an understanding of broader stewardship, recognizing
that economic and social prosperity would be useless if the coastal and marine environments are compromised or
destroyed in the process of development (President’s Council on Sustainable Development, 1996).
Much about the ocean, its processes, and the interrelationship between land and sea is unknown
marine environment to exist.
. Many harvested marine resources depend upon a healthy
Continued research is needed so that sound management decisions can be made when conflicts among users of ocean resources arise. Although much
progress has been made over the past 30 years to enhance marine environmental quality and ocean resources, much work remains. The challenge is to maintain and continue to improve marine water quality as
more people move to the coasts and the pressures of urbanization increase. Through education, partnerships, technological advances, research, and personal responsibility, marine environmental quality should
continue to improve, sustaining resources for generations to come.
"It does not matter where on Earth you live, everyone is utterly dependent
on the existence of that lovely, living saltwater soup. There’s plenty of water
in the universe without life, but nowhere is there life without water. The
living ocean drives planetary chemistry, governs climate and weather, and
otherwise provides the cornerstone of the life-support system for all
creatures on our planet, from deep-sea starfish to desert sagebrush. That’s
why the ocean matters. If the sea is sick, we’ll feel it. If it dies, we die. Our
future and the state of the oceans are one."
Normal resilience claims don’t apply here, life is impossible without healthy oceans.
Coyne and Hoekstra 2007 – *professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of
Chicago AND ** Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at
Harvard University (Jerry and Hopi, The New Republic, “The Greatest Dying,” 9/24,
http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying)
In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators,
while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse
from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and
produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs – a major problem since
these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion.
In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems – those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace – has been estimated to be as much
Life as we know it
would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace.
as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber.
The plan’s reform plank spurs greater investment in Cuban sugar ethanol
Soligo & Jaffe, 10– Rice Scholar at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University AND
Wallace S. Wilson Fellow in Energy Studies at Rice University (Ronald AND Amy Myers, Cuba's Energy
Future Strategic Approaches to Cooperation, p. )//NG
The Structure of an Ethanol Industry If Cuba decides to develop an ethanol industry it will have to decide on how to structure it. In particular, it
will have to decide on the relative roles of the Cuban state and private citizens as well as the role of foreign companies. There are several
models that Cuba can choose from. One is to resuscitate a national, state-owned sugar industry with the addition of state-owned biorefineries.
Sugarcane would be grown on state farms and cooperatives, processed in state-owned biorefineries, and marketed by an agency of the
government. Past
experience suggests that the state has not been able to operate
the sugar industry in a cost-competitive way. Recent land reforms are motivated by that experience.
Agriculture depends on rapid decisionmaking in response to changing
location-specific information such as weather patterns, soil conditions, and
pest infestations. Successful agriculture depends on decentralized
decisionmaking with proper incentives given to the decentralized manager,
a lesson learned in all highly centralized economies. In addition to these efficiency
considerations, the Cuban government would have great difficulty in raising the
enormous amounts of capital necessary to revive large-scale sugar
cultivation and construct biorefineries and other needed infrastructure if
these were to be solely within the state sector. Another option is to follow the policies used in the oil
and nickel industries, where foreign private firms currently operate. These firms provide the technology,
management expertise, and capital, while the state provides labor. Workers
would have to be well paid and well treated— otherwise this approach might
be politically difficult, since it would hark back to the sugar plantations of the prerevolution years. Under this
model Cuba is able to get access to needed resources, yet still maintain
“control” of the industry and the egalitarian income policies that characterize the Cuban socialist model. Finally,
Cuba can continue its agricultural reforms and encourage sugarcane
cultivation by individual farmers or cooperatives who could sell their
output to biorefineries owned and operated by privately owned domestic or
foreign firms. This option might attract foreign capital and expertise in the
biorefinery end of the industry, but it is difficult to see where private and
cooperative farms would get access to the large amount of capital needed to
rebuild the agricultural capacity of the country. Farmers would require access to credit to
purchase inputs needed in the cultivation of sugarcane. In the absence of
U.S. sanctions, Cuba would have access to the resources from the
international banking institutions (World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank), but resources from
these institutions come with controls and constraints that the Cuban government would find uncomfortable. Furthermore, relying on
more independent farmers would also create a class of private and
cooperative farmers whose incomes would not be subject to state control,
and could lead to income inequalities.
TRANSITION ADVANTAGE
REFORMS NOW
Cuba is increasing privatization now
Sweig and Bustamante 13 - Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies
and Director for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Ph.D. candidate in Latin
American history at Yale University (Julia E. and Michael J, Cuba After Communism, Foreign Affairs,
Jul/Aug2013, Vol. 92, Issue 4
REFORM WITH CUBAN CHARACTERISTICS From the moment he assumed provisional power in 2006,
Raúl Castro has spoken bluntly about Cuba's predicament. "We reform, or we sink,"
he declared in a characteristically short and pointed 2010 national address. Even as Havana sticks to its
central political conviction -- namely, that the Communist Party remains the nation's best defense
against more than a century of U.S. interference -- terms such as "decentralization,"
"accountability," and "institutionalization" have become buzzwords, not taboos.
Whereas in the 1990s, Havana was willing to permit only limited private
enterprise as an emergency measure, the government now talks openly of ensuring
that 50 percent of Cuba's GDP be in private hands within five years. Realistic or
not, such ambitious goals would have been sacrilege less than ten years ago. Already, the
representation of Cuban small-business owners in the country's National
Assembly and their participation in the annual May Day parade offer evidence of changes
under way. The reforms have yielded several modest successes thus far. After facing
sharp liquidity and balance-of-payments crises in the wake of the 2008 global financial meltdown,
Cuba has succeeded in restoring a modicum of financial stability, resuming
its debt payments, sharply cutting its imports, and beginning the arduous task of
reducing public expenditures. Several key strategic investments from international partners -most notably, the refurbishing of Mariel Harbor, with the aid of Brazilian capital, to transform it into a
major container shipping port -- are moving forward on schedule. Meanwhile, a new state
financial accountability bureau has begun the hard task of weeding out endemic
corruption. Nevertheless, Cuba faces serious obstacles in its quest for greater economic vitality.
Unlike China and Vietnam at the start of their reform efforts, Cuba is an
underdeveloped country with developed-world problems. Not only is the
population aging (18 percent of the population is over 60), but the country's economy is heavily tilted
toward the services sector. When Vietnam began its doi moi (renovation) economic reforms in 1986,
services accounted for about 33 percent of GDP, whereas the productive base represented nearly 67
percent. By contrast, services in Cuba make up close to 75 percent of the island's GDP -- the result of 20plus years of severe industrial decay and low rates of savings and investment. Service exports (mainly of
health-care professionals), combined with tourism and remittances, constitute the country's primary
defense against a sustained balance-of-payments deficit. Cuban officials and economists
recognize this structural weakness and have emphasized the need to boost
exports and foster a more dynamic domestic market. Yet so far, the state has not been
able to remedy the imbalance. In the sugar industry, once a mainstay, production continues to flounder
despite a recent uptick in global prices and new Brazilian investment. Meanwhile, a corruption scandal
and declining world prices have weakened the nickel industry, leading to the closing of one of the
island's three processing facilities. More broadly, Cuban productivity remains anemic, and the country
has been unable to capitalize on its highly educated work force.
Major economic reforms coming now
Sweig, 13 - Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin
America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (Julia, “The Post-Castro Era Is Today” 1/30,
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/post-castro-era-today/p29894
The post-Castro era in Cuba has arrived. But its main architect is Raul Castro.
His reform agenda does not have the formulaic recitations of a political science textbook or the
guidelines of an IMF structural adjustment program. No multiparty elections. No Starbucks, Walmart, or
Burger King. Not much independent media. But little by little Cuba is undergoing a
significant transformation in the basic expectations Cuban citizens have of
the state, and vice versa. Lula's visit this week may focus on Venezuela, but all around him Cuba is
becoming a freer, more open, and yes, more democratic society.
Earlier this month, a new law took effect that eliminates restrictions on travel for almost everyone:
Cubans no longer need pay exorbitant fees or await the "tarjeta blanca"—state permission—to travel.
Now, they need only a visa, like the rest of the world. And if they want to live and work abroad, Cubans
will no longer lose their property or residence status: a big step forward for freedom and human rights,
and a potential economic boon as well.
Business and profit are no longer dirty words. Senior officials project that with new laws and
regulations empowering small businesses, within five years fully 50 percent
of the economy will be in private, non-state hands. Under the new rules, individuals
and cooperatives can now hire employees, obtain bank financing, procure inputs from wholesale
markets, and turn a profit. There are myriad problems for sure: but these are increasingly of a practical,
not ideological nature, more about the need to build capacity and experience, whereas before the
private sector was viewed as a necessary evil. Now this new space has legitimacy and legality.
A progressive tax system is also taking shape. This is not a mere technical adjustment.
With the new decentralization, state and municipal government will raise and spend their budgets from
tax revenue collected at the base, with the federal government paying a much reduced slate of costs—
mainly education, health and defense. Cubans are used to getting everything for free.
The notion that they will work, pay taxes, and receive health, education and
a pension but not much more, represents a radical political shift.
Next month Raul Castro begins his second and very likely final five-year term as president of the Cuban
republic. The slate of candidates represents a big demographic and political step forward. Some 67
percent of the candidates for 612 seats are completely new picks, and of these, more than 70 percent
were born after 1959. Women comprise 49 percent of the candidates and Afro descendants 37 percent.
Cuban voters will be asked to check yea or nay from this new list, so it's not a direct competition. But if
you want to understand where the successors to the post post-Castro era may come from, I'd look at
this new group.
Cuban economic and political reform is inevitable
Szyliowicz, 13 - professor at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver
(Joseph, “The Contradictions of Our Cuba Policy” The American Interest, 6/11, http://www.theamerican-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1448)
However, this centralized, heavily regulated economy has become so
unsustainable that the government has instituted some decidedly unsocialist reforms in areas such as self-employment and small businesses creation, increased
autonomy for firms in regards to wages, prices and financing, greater freedom for Cubans to emigrate
and travel abroad, and distribution of land to farmers. Driving across the country, we were struck by the
vast expanses of uncultivated land—testimony to the weaknesses of Cuba’s agricultural system, which
meets only half of the country’s food requirements. The state farms have low worker productivity, and
along with family farms and co-ops they suffer from a shortage of inputs such as irrigation pipes,
insecticides and credit. Until the Revolution in 1959, sugar and coffee were significant cash crops for
Cuba, generating enormous amounts of revenue. Sugar production was abandoned because of low
prices, although in recent times there has been a modest revival. Coffee production is also limited—
much to the amazement of the Vietnamese, who received technical advice from Cuba when developing
coffee as a major export crop.
By distributing land to farmers and introducing limited free market
elements, the government hopes to diminish the country’s heavy
dependence on food imports, generate foreign exchange, enhance state
revenues and provide private sector jobs for the thousands of Cubans who will be
unemployed as the size and reach of the bureaucracy is reduced.
These reforms, represent relatively small steps given the magnitude of the country’s economic problems
but everyone we met with generally agreed that Cuba has entered a new stage, and that the reforms
are probably irreversible (although minor setbacks remain possible). The trend is clear: these
small reforms will likely be followed by others that will incrementally
dismantle the existing socialist framework and lead to the emergence of
new socio-economic communities. Current and future reforms will also
have profound political consequences, for new groups will inexorably seek
to influence the political system. Nevertheless, political change will not come easily; the
country’s authoritarian system is deeply embedded and the political elite is determined to maintain
control.
Given the concern with maintaining political power as well as the domestic and foreign realities,
reforming the economy so that it becomes a productive engine of growth
will be an extremely challenging task. The present system is marked by
cronyism, corruption and a heavy bureaucratic hand that will not relax its
grip easily. During our travels we met with a couple who had obtained a license to rent out rooms in
their house. I asked about bureaucratic difficulties; at first the owner said there were none, but when I
pressed I learned that the owner’s attempt to install a rooftop Jacuzzi was being blocked for no
apparent reason.
Privatization is occurring now
Goforth, 12 - author of Axis of Unity: Venezuela, Iran and the Threat to America (Sean, The National
Interest, “Cuba's Economic Desperation” 7/31, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/cuba%27seconomic-desperation-7269)
Earlier this month, Cuba’s parliament rubber-stamped several reforms tied to
Raul Castro’s program, announced almost two years ago, to grow the country’s
private sector. If all goes according to plan, Cuban officials expect roughly
half of the economy will be reborn in the private sector over the next five
years. In theory, steep taxes on small businesses and privatized co-ops will bolster state coffers, and
regulation will keep state-owned enterprises insulated from competition. In practice, the government is
losing control of the privatization program.
For the most part, the hundreds of thousands of small-business licenses handed out so far by the
government pertain to low-skilled services and nonessential industries, including restaurants, car-repair
shops and the like. Entrepreneurial Cubans have improvised solutions to prohibitions against most forms
of advertising by painting the side doors of their cars and leafleting window shields. Another major hitch
to the expansion of private enterprise, access to wholesalers, is being resolved in part by the Obama
administration’s 2009 decision to allow greater freedom of travel to the island by Cuban Americans.
According to some estimates, roughly $1 billion a year in goods enters Cuba in this fashion. Despite the
kinks, the nascent private sector is outcompeting the state. Last week, the Miami
Herald reported that the Castro government is raising fees on goods imported by Cuban Americans,
“apparently trying to force émigrés to send badly needed cash instead, to control the trade in imported
items and counter the drop in sales of those types of goods at state-owned stores.”
ECONOMIC REFORM CAUSES POLITICAL REFORM
Economic liberalization will force political reform to accommodate
Lopez-Levy 13 – PhD candidate at Josef Korbel School of International Studies, coauthor of “Raul
Castro and the New Cuba” (Arturo, The National Interest, April 10, 2013,
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/getting-ready-post-castro-cuba-8316)//EK
If Cuba implements the type of mixed economy proposed by the last
Congress of the Communist Party—a new, more vital relationship with its
diaspora and the world—it may also experience a political transformation.
As the economy and society change, the political status quo cannot hold. The
rise of market mechanisms and an autonomous non-state sector will
reinforce the newly open flows of information, investment and technology.
These new sectors will seek representation in the political arena. Citizens will have greater
access to the Internet, and will be able to associate more horizontally. For at least the next five years,
this does not imply a transition to multiparty democracy. But economic liberalization will
force an expansion of the current system. Economic and migration opportunities will
channel some of the energy in the direction of new businesses and travel, but it will not be enough.
The party system will be reformed in order to remain at the helm of social
and economic life. Political liberalization will probably start in the lower
rungs of government, allowing citizens to vent their frustrations at that
level. Raúl Castro’s decision to limit leadership positions to two terms, at a time when the older
generation is leaving power by attrition, will result in a more institutionalized leadership that promotes
younger leaders in an orderly fashion
Plan’s economic reform fosters political changes- inequality from economic reforms
mandates political counterpart
Lopez-Levy 11 – PhD candidate at Josef Korbel School of International Studies, coauthor of “Raul
Castro and the New Cuba” (Arturo, New America Foundation, May 2011,
http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/naf_all_cuba_reform_final.pdf)//EK
Although the current phase of party debate is focused on the economic and
social dimensions of reform, and while the party would like to prevent the
economic changes from producing pressure for a transition to multi-party
democracy, it would be naive to assume that these economic changes will
not have profound political implications. It is clear that the economic reform
would foster political changes on which the opposition could capitalize.
Workers in state sectors, particularly health and education, would not remain
passive if their salaries remain stagnant while others prosper. Economic
reform and the growth of the private sector would create opportunities for new
america foundation page 10 the legitimization of different types of wealth. Cubans would engage in
conspicuous consumption, as some already do, and inequities and corruption would
necessarily create social tensions.
PLAN KEY TO STABLE CUBAN REFORMS
Removing sanctions and allowing greater engagement makes the democratization process
stable
Lopez-Levy 11 – PhD candidate at Josef Korbel School of International Studies, coauthor of “Raul
Castro and the New Cuba” (Arturo, New America Foundation, May 2011,
http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/naf_all_cuba_reform_final.pdf)//EK
Diplomacy, not sanctions, must be the primary tool for resolving
differences with Havana and advancing U.S. interests. It is worth remembering that since the
2008 presidential campaign in which President Obama proclaimed the value of negotiating with
countries like Cuba, without preconditions, engagement was never defended on the basis of sympathy
for the interlocutors but rather, on how best to promote American values and interests. American
repudiation of the Castros’ conduct may or may not be well earned, but it should not be an excuse for
constraining American influence with Cuban society and elites.
Sanctions, if used, should be “smart”, with the objective of influencing Cuban policy (particularly when
such policies are under serious debate and transformation), not affecting regime change. While
Cuba’s elite do harbor disagreements about how extensive the reform
process should be, all factions are united against changes that would render
Cuba in any way vulnerable to external efforts at regime change. Different from
the model of “Fidel in Command”, the emerging model of bureaucratic politics under Raul is not
insulated from elite sensitivities. To the extent that postrevolutionary elites are
threatened by U.S. policy (The conditions of the Helms-Burton Act, for instance), they are
going to oppose policy changes. To the extent that their interests in a
market-oriented reform are advanced by political concessions such as the
release of the political prisoners, they will advocate for them.
The processes of marketization and political liberalization create an
opportunity for the U.S. to initiate actions that could lead to a proliferation
of meaningful changes in Cuba. American support for both a democratic and an
economically stable Cuba are far from mutually exclusive. As the experience of other countries
demonstrates, economic and political reforms are intertwined. Democracy in
the long run tends to produce stable governments but the process of getting
there is inherently destabilizing. Multiparty elections, for instance, in the absence of a
stabilizing economic and social environment tend to be destabilizing and often violent. A growing,
market-oriented Cuban economy that enjoys substantial participation from
the Cuban Diaspora will be a major deterrent against violence . There are numerous
examples, world-wide, of the positive repercussions a transition to a market economy (the Cuban nonstate sector would jump from 15% of GDP today to 35% in 2015) has for the independence of civil
society. The United States should support such a course in Cuba.
Removing the perception of US confrontation causes Cuban elites to accept greater reform
Lopez-Levy 11 – PhD candidate at Josef Korbel School of International Studies, coauthor of “Raul
Castro and the New Cuba” (Arturo, New America Foundation, May 2011,
http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/naf_all_cuba_reform_final.pdf)//EK
If the goal is to promote marketization and political liberalization in Cuba, economic sanctions and the
travel prohibitions fail to further that goal. If companies follow adequate programs of corporate social
responsibility, American investment in Cuba can provide leverage and support
to the reform process. Good jobs in industries that treat Cuban workers with respect can do
more for them than any abstract political rhetoric about “liberation”. American, Canadian, Latin
American, and European businesses and travelers to Cuba would do more to further reform on the
island through their operations, internet connections, attitudes and interactions with Cubans, than
speeches from Radio Marti or selective engagements with the government’s opponents.
It is also important to recognize changes to the United States’ Cuban population, brought about by the
migration agreements of 1994 and 1995. More than 20, 000 Cubans arrive every year to the United
States legally, mainly as a result of a U.S. visa lottery. At this rate, there could be close to 400,000
Cubans in the United States by the end of 2012, all of whom will have arrived without the label of
political refugees. As compared to previous waves of migrants, these individuals have a different
relationship with Cuba and, in most cases, a different vision about how to bring greater freedom to the
island. Many Cubans recently resettled in the United States would gladly invest in Cuba, hoping to profit
from their knowledge of the Cuban and American markets and trusting that the progress of a market
economy would undermine the basis of the one party system.
A realistic assessment of the current post-revolutionary elite is also useful. The top echelon of
Cuba’s communist leadership is a cohesive group composed by mature, seasoned, interestsdriven power seekers. They are not the sadist anti-American ogres depicted by
many pro-embargo propagandists. Neither are they U.S.-loving democrats
who have merely been mistreated. The primary objective of this group is to remain
in power; they are not going to make concessions unless they have to or find
it to be convenient. True, they might be paranoid and helping to reproduce some structures of
hostility but many in Cuba perceive their suspicion as legitimate. Their feelings are shared by many given
the past confrontations between Cuban nationalism and United States’ intrusive, paternalistic and
imperial attitude, and the lack of normal communication between the two countries in the last fifty
years.
The logic behind dismantling structures of confrontation is powerful
because it creates a wedge between the leadership and the population,
particularly its own bases. The most powerful argument the Cuban leadership has
used to impose restrictions on the civil liberties of the population is that the
country is under a national emergency due to long-standing hostility of the
United States. If there is a thaw in U.S.-Cuba relations, it would create
pressure for a re-assessment of the nature of the perceived threat, and
foment discussion about the many political projects that exist within Cuba’s
nationalist camp and its population in general.
The worst case scenario for both Cuban authorities and also for U.S. policy
toward Cuba is not the continuation of the current situation, but a failure of
the reforms now underway.
U.S. should ease sanctions- expedites Cuban economic reform
Bandow 2012 –J.D from Stanford University, special assistant to President Reagan (Doug, “Time to
End the Cuba Embargo”, Cato Institute, 12/11/12, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/timeend-cubaembargo?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+(
Cato+Recent+Op-eds) //KW
Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans
and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates
American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually.
Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba
for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant
change. Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling
system. Despite Fidel Castro’s decline, Cuban politics remains largely static. A few human rights activists
have been released, while Raul Castro has used party purges to entrench loyal elites.
Lifting the embargo would be no panacea. Other countries invest in and trade with Cuba to no obvious
political impact. And the lack of widespread economic reform makes it easier for the regime rather than
the people to collect the benefits of trade, in contrast to China. Still, more U.S. contact would have an
impact. Argued trade specialist Dan Griswold, “American tourists would boost the
earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes.
Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers
markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs.”
The Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in history’s dustbin. But it will continue to cause much
human hardship along the way.
The Heritage Foundation’s John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that “the United States
must not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist
regime.” But the dead hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach
of faith with the Cuban people.
Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread
liberty. As Griswold argued, “commercial engagement is the best way to encourage
more open societies abroad.” Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the
embargo would have a greater likelihood of success than continuing a
policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing
more contact with Americans likely would make that day come sooner.
We access multiple internal links to Cuban economic recovery
CETIM ‘3 (Centre Europe Tiers Monde, independent research and political organization working at the
UN, THE EFFECTS OF THE US EMBARGO AGAINST CUBA AND THE REASONS OF THE URGENT NEED TO
LIFT IT, http://www.cetim.ch/oldsite/2003/03js04w4.htm)
The harmful economic effects of the embargo
From an official Cuban source, the direct economic damages caused to Cuba by theUS
embargo since its institution would exceed 70 billion dollars. The damages include:1) the loss
of earnings due to the obstacles to the development of services and
exportations (tourism, air transport, sugar, nickel; 2) the losses registered as a result of the
geographic reorientation of the commercial flows, (additional costs of freight,stocking and
commercialization at the purchasing of the goods…); 3) the impact of the limitation
imposed on the growth of the national production of goods and services
(limited access to technologies, lack of access to spare parts and hence early retirementof equipment,
forced restructuring of firms, serious difficulties sustained by the sectorsof sugar, electricity,
transportation, agriculture…); 4) the monetary and financialrestrictions (impossibility to renegotiate the
external debt, interdiction of access to thedollar, unfavourable impact of the variation of the exchange
rates on trade, "riskcountry", additional cost of financing due to US opposition to the
integration of Cubainto the international financial institutions…); 5) the pernicious
effects of the incentiveto emigration, including illegal emigration (loss of human resources and
talentsgenerated by the Cuban educational system…); 6) social damages affecting thepopulation
(concerning food, health, education, culture, sport…).! If it affects negatively all the sectors, the
embargo directly impedes - besides theexportations - the driving forces of the Cuban economic
recovery , at the top of whichare tourism, foreign direct investments (FDI) and currency
transfers. Many European subsidiaries of US firms had recently to break off negotiations for the management of hotels, because their lawyers
anticipated that the contracts would be sanctioned under the provisions of the "Helms-Burton law". In addition, the buy-out by US groups of European cruising
societies, which moored their vessels in Cuba, cancelled the projects in 2002-03.
The obstacles imposed by the United States, in
violation of the ChicagoConvention on civil aviation, to the sale or the rental of planes, to the supply
ofkerosene and to access to new technologies (e-reservation, radio-localization), will lead to a loss of
150 million dollars in 2003. The impact on the FDI is also veryunfavourable. The institutes of promotion of FDI in
Cuba received more than 500 projects of cooperation from US companies, but none of them could be realized - not even in the pharmaceutical
and biotechnological industry, where Cuba has a very attractive potential. The transfer of currencies from the United States is limited (less than
100 dollars a month per family) and some European banks had to restrain their commitment under the pressure of the US which let them know
that indemnities would be required if the credits were maintained.In
Cuba, the embargo penalizes the activities of the
bank and finance, insurance, petrol, chemical products, construction, infrastructures and transports,
shipyard, agriculture and fishing, electronics and computing…, but also for the export sectors (where the
US property prevailed before1959), such as those of sugar, whose recovery is impeded by the
interdiction of access to the fist international stock exchange of raw materials (New York), of nickel,
tobacco, rum.
FAILED REFORM CAUSES CIVIL WAR
Failure of economic reform causes civil war
Lopez-Levy 11 – PhD candidate at Josef Korbel School of International Studies, coauthor of “Raul
Castro and the New Cuba” (Arturo, New America Foundation, May 2011,
http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/naf_all_cuba_reform_final.pdf)//EK
Indeed, if Cuba’s economic reform fails and local revolts ensue, the most
likely outcome would be more a civil war such as that seen in Libya, with
horrific acts of war, resistance and violations of human rights throughout the country.
Nationalists who are concerned about the risk of political instability and criticize the lack of a credible
proposal by most Cuban opposition groups should not be dismissed as opponents of democracy. The
support for the political opposition should not be a litmus test that determines whether Washington will
engage in cooperative dialogue with actors in Cuba.
By ignoring both the Cuban elite’s potential for governance and the current
balance of power in which the opposition is fragmented, dispersed and
without a clearly-articulated governance plan, the U.S. is opting for the
most unstable and uncertain road to political transition. The immediate
goals of U.S. policy towards Cuba must be to promote market growth
through economic reform and a stable process of political liberalization that
welcomes the growth of nonpartisan Cuban civil society organizations.
CUBAN COLLAPSE KILLS GWOT
A Cuban crisis will collapse the war on terror – economic engagement solves
Gorrell, 5 - Lieutenant Colonel, US Army, paper submitted for the USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT
(Tim, “CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC CRISIS?” http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074 GWOT=Global War on Terrorism
U.S. policy makers need to confront the real Cuba of today in order to build a “free” Cuba of tomorrow
that is capable of taking its place in the world community as a responsible, democratic nation. Given the
history of the past 100 years, and particularly our Castro centric policy, the U.S. needs to make a bold
change toward Cuba. The U.S. has pursued a hard-line approach toward the Castro regime for over 40
years. While this policy was easily justified during the Cold War era and, to a certain degree, during the
1990s, it fails to address the present U.S. national security concerns. The globalization trends of the 21st
century are irreversible, Fidel Castro is in the twilight of his life, and a new generation of CubanAmericans is supportive of new strategies that will ease the transition to a post-Castro Cuba while
buttressing economic and social opportunities in the near term. Furthermore, there is a new
dimension that U.S. policy strategists must take into account in deciding the
course of U.S.- Cuba relations – the GWOT. World-wide asymmetrical
threats to U.S. interests, coupled with the Iraqi occupation and the potential for
any one of the present hot spots (i.e. Iran, North Korea, Taiwan, etc.) to ignite,
should prompt strategic leaders to work harder to mitigate a potential
Caribbean crises. The prudent action would then be to develop strategies
that can defuse or neutralize these situations before they require the U.S. to
divert resources from protecting its interests in the GWOT .
Therefore, the U.S. can best serve its security, the Cuban people, and the Western Hemisphere by
abandoning the present draconian policy toward Cuba. The U.S. should implement a new
policy designed to achieve its goals through lifting all sanctions and
pursuing normalized diplomatic relations; encouraging people-to-people dialogue and
trade. The policy should continue to pursue human rights, democracy, and free market ends. However,
the ways to realize these objectives should be grounded in full economic
engagement, an approach that has not been fully attempted. The present U.S. policy has failed
miserably. What does the most powerful nation on earth have to lose by attempting a bold shift in its
policy toward Cuba?
TERRORISM RISK HIGH
Boston attacks fuels war on terror- proves still ongoing
Mccants 13 – Politics examiner for Examiner (Parks, Examiner, “Boston Marathon attack fuels
international war on terror”, April 17, 2013, http://www.examiner.com/article/boston-marathon-attackfuels-international-war-on-terror)//EK
As the nation reals from the Boston Marathon bombing, an individual or
terrorist cell group somewhere congratulates themselves for a job well
done. Once again a seemingly senseless act of random terror holds the people of
the United States hostage. The greatest military power on the planet and its
civilian counterpart is once again reduced to a component in the cat and
mouse game that is international and domestic terrorism. RELATED TOPICS Boston
Marathondomestic terrorismInternational TerrorismParks McCants Commentary RELATED ADS
Antiterrorism Counterterrorism Terrorism Terrorism Research Advertisement With something as
fundamentally basic as a home pressure cooker; a few pounds of nails and ball bearings; propelled by a
low grade explosive yet revealed by the F.B.I., a $ trillion dollar military and civilian
Homeland Security machine is left scrambling for answers to questions that
may not have any. What, who and why? Public, random terrorism is a heinous act with instant and
long-term physical and psychological effects inflicted on the intended victims. As shared by news
networks last Tuesday, the world stands in condemnation of this act of target- less
brutality. Runners and bi-standers struck down in a micro-second of catastrophic explosive mayhem
at the hands of a yet unknown assailant.
TERRORISM RISKS EXTINCTION
Terror leads to existential Russia war
Starr 13- MT, Senior Scientist and Director of Clinical Laboratory Science (Steven, Nuclear Darkness,
“Nuclear War caused by Terrorism”, 2013,
http://www.nucleardarkness.org/highalert/nuclearwarcausedbyterrorism/)//EK
As long as the US and Russia maintain LoW capability and a de facto LoW
policy, the possibility remains of a false warning triggering a retaliatory
nuclear attack and an accidental nuclear war. The possible causes of a false warning are
no longer restricted to failures of hardware, software or human judgment. Deliberate acts of
individual or state-sponsored terrorism must now be factored into this
most dangerous equation. Such acts could include spoofing radar or
satellite sensors of early warning systems to make it appear than an attack
is in progress, when in fact no attack has occurred. This could also be accomplished
by the penetration of nuclear command and control computer networks and
subsequent introduction of false data into the systems. Viruses and
software could also be downloaded into early warning system computers
which would mimic a full-scale nuclear attack. There could easily not be enough time
to properly identify the real problem, given that there are only 12 to 30 minutes allowed for the entire
evaluation and decision making process to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. (This is one reason why
RLOAD has been suggested as a temporary “solution” to this threat.) Launch-on-Warning policy could
thus cause the launch of a retaliatory nuclear strike based on a terrorist-generated false warning when
in fact no attack had occurred. Also, if terrorists obtained permission codes
required to launch nuclear weapons and then obtained access to the
command and control systems, or took physical control of a nuclear
weapon (e.g. a road-mobile Russia SS-25), they would be able to launch the
weapon(s). Removing nuclear weapons from high-alert status would at
least least prevent the quick-launch of these weapons under such
circumstances.
MULTILAT ADVANTAGE
MULTILAT SOLVES WARS
Multilateralism prevents nuclear war with rising Asian powers
Kugler, 6– Professor of World Politics at Claremont Graduate University (Jacek, “The Asian Ascent:
Opportunity for Peace or Precondition for War?”, http://sobek.colorado.edu/~lewiso/Kugler%20%20The%20Asian%20Ascent.pdf)//NG
Given the fundamental importance of demographic and economic forces in establishing the roster of
states capable of fundamentally affecting the structure of world politics, whatever resolution there
might be to the Global War on Terror will not alter the major challenge faced by the United States. In the
long run, China’s demographic and hence economic power cannot be denied.
By the same reasoning, the Middle East has no long-run demographic or
economic power. The U.S. courts long-term peril by being obsessively
distracted by short-term objectives. To ensure real peace, the U.S. would be much better
advised to preserve strong links with the EU, maintain and improve cordial relations with Russia, and
most importantly, open a sincere dialogue with India and China designed to maximize their support for
the existing status quo. To be sure, positive, but limited, steps have been taken by the United States.
American support for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization was important because it helps
integrate China’s growing economy more fully into the capitalist world economy. Similar recognition for
India, not to mention support for Indian membership on the United Nations Security Council, would also
be beneficial. Because Taiwan and Korea have replaced the Cold War’s Berlin as focal points for potential
Great Power conflict, finding an accommodation that meets the desires of the main parties with respect
to them is central to the preservation of long-term peace. The economic, demographic, and political
science research summarized above suggests that American foreign policy attention must
center on China and India as the major future contenders for global
leadership. Although China retains a political ideology inconsistent with democracy, there are good
reasons to expect and thus to work toward change to a participatory system based on increasing
prosperity (Feng 2003; Feng and Zak 2003). India is the largest democracy in the world, but like China it
is still not a major partner of the Western world. While these relationships may develop and prosper on
their own, the relative amount of attention paid to these rising giants compared with the Global War on
Terror is simply insupportable. Neither convergence arguments nor power
transition theory suggests that future Great Power war between Asia and
the West is inevitable. The research described here offers evidence about probabilistic
relationships between parity and status quo evaluations on the one hand, and war on the other. Thus,
while China’s overtaking of the U.S. may be relatively certain, the result of
that overtaking is not. Power transition research supports claims that
overtakings are dangerous when policy makers fail to accommodate them.
A conflict between China or India and the United States as the Asian giants
emerge from the shadows of underdevelopment is not inevitable. Rather, the
political negotiations among contenders determine whether potential
challengers can be made satisfied with the rules and norms governing
world politics. If the declining dominant state is able to engineer a satisfactory compromise
between the demands of the rising state and its own requirements (as Britain and the U.S. did when
peacefully passing the mantle of international leadership), war is not expected. If the two sides
remain intransigent, war is expected. It is clear that such a war in the twenty-
first century would have a very high probability of involving nuclear
weapons. A clear counterexpectation can be drawn from classical nuclear deterrence arguments.
They involve a fundamental assumption that as the costs of war increase,
the probability of war decreases. Nuclear weapons are then alleged to alter
calculations substantially because they raise the expected costs of war so
high that war becomes unthinkable. According to this logic, a global war between a newly
predominant China and a declining U.S. will never occur thanks to the pacifying influence of the balance
of terror. A new Cold War is anticipated by this nuclear deterrence argument. Consistent with this
theory, various scholars have advocated the proliferation of nuclear weapons as one method to prevent
wars (Intriligator and Brito 1981; Waltz 1981; Bueno de Mesquita and Riker 1982). An odd paradox
is raised by the fact that many world leaders accept nuclear deterrence
claims, such as that about the stability of mutual assured destruction
(MAD), while rejecting the logical concomitant that proliferation of nuclear
weapons to more and more states is desirable. What follows logically has stubbornly
resisted practical implementation. Thus, using some other logic, leaders of nuclear nations seem to
agree that deterrence is stable under MAD but nevertheless also agree that nuclear proliferation must
be prevented in order to preserve peace. If decision makers really believed MAD is stable, it is impossible
to understand why they would oppose nuclear proliferation to Iran, thereby creating stable nuclear
parity in the Middle East. This inconsistency was noted years ago by Rosen (1977), but subsequently
conveniently overlooked. Theory and policy may frequently be at odds, but seldom when the costs of
such logical inconsistency are so high. Power transition theorists are inherently suspicious of MAD
arguments about nuclear stability because they essentially resurrect traditional balance of power
arguments. Rather than focusing on conventional balance as a pacifying influence, nuclear deterrence
proponents of MAD suggest that a nuclear balance will maintain the peace. Given a fortuitous absence
of wars among nuclear states thus far, it is impossible to test arguments such as that about MAD. But
what we can observe is not promising. It is not only policy makers who doubt the veracity of MAD when
they deny the logical consequence of ‘‘beneficial’’ proliferation. Recent formal presentations of
deterrence arguments strongly suggest that a preponderance of nuclear capabilitiesFspecifically in the
possession of satisfied statesFis more amenable to peace than is MAD (Zagare and Kilgour 2000).
Power transition theorists, informed by their own as well as by decades of
demographic and economic research, strongly doubt that nuclear parity
between the U.S. and a risen but dissatisfied China could preserve the
peace. Conclusions It is entirely reasonable to anticipate that Asia will dominate world politics by the
end of the century. The most important issue facing American decision makers is
how to handle the anticipated overtaking. The research summarized here indicates that
the one element of Asia’s ascent that Western decision makers can
manipulate is Asia’s relative acceptance of the international system’s
existing norms and values. War is not an inevitable certainty. The opportunity for
peace is at hand. If Western decision makers can persuade Chinese and Indian
leaders through word and deed to join with the current global status quo,
peace and prosperity should endure. If, on the other hand, China and India
cannot be persuaded to join the existing structure of relations, then the
chances for conflict increase around mid-century. The research summarized here
suggests this is true even in the face of the enormous costs that reasonably
would be anticipated from a nuclear war
Multilateralism solves war
Dyer ‘4– independent journalist, cites Frans de Waal, Ph. D in biology, works at Yerkes National Primate
Center (Gwynne, “The End of War: Our Task Over the Next Few Years is to Transform the World of
Independent States into a Genuine Global Village”, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/123005.htm)//NG
About 20 years ago, a disaster struck the Forest Troop of baboons in Kenya. There was a tourist lodge within their range, and the biggest and
toughest males in the troop would regularly go to the garbage dump there to forage for food. Subordinate males, however, did not go � so
when the brutal and despotic alpha males of Forest Troop all ate meat infected with bovine tuberculosis at the dump and promptly died, the
less aggressive 50 per cent of the group's males survived. And the troop's whole culture changed. Male baboons are so obsessed with status
that they are always on a hair-trigger for aggression � and it isn't just directed at male rivals of equal status. Lower-ranking males routinely get
bullied and terrorized, and even females (who weigh half as much as males) are frequently attacked and even bitten. You really would not want
to live your life as a baboon. Yet after the biggest, baddest males of Forest Troop all died off at once, the whole social atmosphere changed.
When it was first studied by primatologists in 1979-82, it was a typical, utterly vicious baboon society, but after the mass die-off of the bullies
the surviving members relaxed and began treating one another more decently. The males still fight even today � they are baboons, after all �
but they quarrel with other males of equal rank rather than beating up on social inferiors, and they don't attack the females at all. Everybody
spends much more time in grooming, huddling close together, and other friendly social behavior, and stress levels even for the lowest-ranking
individuals (as measured by hormone samples) are far lower than in other baboon troops. Most important of all, these new behaviors have
become entrenched in the troop's culture. Male baboons rarely live more than 18 years: The low-status survivors of the original disaster are all
gone now. All the current adult males of the Forest Troop are baboons who joined it as adolescents after 1982, so by now the range of male
personalities in Forest Troop must have returned to the normal baboon distribution. But the level of aggression has not returned to baboonnormal. "We don't yet understand the mechanism of transmission," said Robert Sapolsky, a biology and neurology professor at Stanford
University who co-authored the 2004 report on the Forest Troop phenomenon, "but the jerky new guys are obviously learning: We don't do
things like that around here.'" Human beings are less aggressive and more co-operative than baboons or even chimpanzees, and a thousand
times more flexible in our cultural arrangements: Most of us now live quite comfortably in pseudo-bands called nations that are literally a
million times bigger than the bands our ancestors lived in until the rise of civilization. War
is deeply embedded in
our history and our culture, probably since before we were even fully
human, but weaning ourselves away from it should not be a bigger
mountain to climb than some of the other changes we have already made in
the way we live, given the right incentives. And we have certainly been given the right incentives: The holiday from history that
we have enjoyed since the early '90s may be drawing to an end, and another great-power war, fought next time with nuclear weapons, may be
lurking in our future. The "firebreak" against nuclear weapons use that we began building after Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for well over
half a century now. But the
proliferation of nuclear weapons to new powers is a major
challenge to the stability of the system. So are the coming crises, mostly
environmental in origin, which will hit some countries much harder than
others, and may drive some to desperation. Add in the huge impending shifts
in the great-power system as China and India grow to rival the United States
in GDP over the next 30 or 40 years and it will be hard to keep things from
spinning out of control. With good luck and good management, we may be able to ride out the
next half-century without the first-magnitude catastrophe of a global
nuclear war, but the potential certainly exists for a major die-back of
human population. We cannot command the good luck, but good management is something we can choose to provide. It
depends, above all, on preserving and extending the multilateral system
that we have been building since the end of World War II. The rising powers
must be absorbed into a system that emphasizes co-operation and makes
room for them, rather than one that deals in confrontation and raw military
power. If they are obliged to play the traditional great-power game of winners and losers, then history will repeat itself and everybody
loses. Our hopes for mitigating the severity of the coming environmental crises
also depend on early and concerted global action of a sort that can only
happen in a basically co-operative international system. When the great powers are locked
into a military confrontation, there is simply not enough spare attention, let alone
enough trust, to make deals on those issues, so the highest priority at the
moment is to keep the multilateral approach alive and avoid a drift back
into alliance systems and arms races. And there is no point in dreaming that we can leap straight into some
never-land of universal brotherhood; we will have to confront these challenges and solve the
problem of war within the context of the existing state system. The solution to the state
of international anarchy that compels every state to arm itself for war was so obvious that it arose almost spontaneously in 1918. The wars by
which independent states had always settled their quarrels in the past had grown so monstrously destructive that some alternative system had
to be devised, and that could only be a pooling of sovereignty, at least in matters concerning war and peace, by all the states of the world. So
the victors of World War I promptly created the League of Nations. But the solution was as difficult in practice as it was simple in concept. Every
member of the League of Nations understood that if the organization somehow acquired the ability to act in a concerted and effective fashion,
it could end up being used against them, so no major government was willing to give the League of Nations any real power. Instead, they got
World War II, and that war was so bad � by the end the first nuclear weapons had been used on cities � that the victors made a second
attempt in 1945 to create an international organization that really could prevent war. They literally changed international law and made war
illegal, but they were well aware that all of that history and all those reflexes were not going to vanish overnight. It would be depressing to
catalogue the many failures of the United Nations, but it would also be misleading. The implication would be that this was an enterprise that
should have succeeded from the start, and has failed irrevocably. On the contrary; it was bound to be a relative failure at the outset. It was
always going to be very hard to persuade sovereign governments to surrender power to an untried world authority which might then make
decisions that went against their particular interests. In the words of the traditional Irish directions to a lost traveler: "If that's where you want
to get to, sir, I wouldn't start from here." But here is where we must start from, for it is states that run the world. The present international
system, based on heavily armed and jealously independent states, often exaggerates the conflicts between the multitude of human
communities in the world, but it does reflect an underlying reality: We cannot all get all we want, and some method must exist to decide who
gets what. That is why neighboring states have lived in a perpetual state of potential war, just as neighboring hunter-gatherer bands did 20,000
years ago. If
we now must abandon war as a method of settling our disputes and
devise an alternative, it only can be done with the full co-operation of the
world's governments. That means it certainly will be a monumentally difficult and lengthy task: Mistrust reigns everywhere
and no nation will allow even the least of its interests to be decided upon by a collection of foreigners. Even the majority of states that are more
or less satisfied with their borders and their status in the world would face huge internal opposition from nationalist elements to any transfer of
sovereignty to the United Nations. The
good news for humans is that it looks like peaceful
conditions, once established, can be maintained. And if baboons can do it, why not us? The
U.N. as presently constituted is certainly no place for idealists, but they
would feel even more uncomfortable in a United Nations that actually
worked as was originally intended. It is an association of poachers turned game-keepers, not an assembly of
saints, and it would not make its decisions according to some impartial standard of justice. There is no impartial concept of justice to which all
of mankind would subscribe and, in any case, it is not "mankind" that makes decisions at the United Nations, but governments with their own
national interests to protect. To envision how a functioning world authority might reach its decisions, at least in its first century or so, begin
with the arrogant promotion of self-interest by the great powers that would continue to dominate U.N. decision-making and add in the crass
expediency masquerading as principle that characterizes the shifting coalitions among the lesser powers in the present General Assembly: It
would be an intensely political process. The decisions it produced would be kept within reasonable bounds only by the need never to act in a
way so damaging to the interest of any major member or group of members that it forced them into total defiance, and so destroyed the
fundamental consensus that keeps war at bay. There is nothing shocking about this. National politics in every country operates with the same
combination: a little bit of principle, a lot of power, and a final constraint on the ruthless exercise of that power based mainly on the need to
preserve the essential consensus on which the nation is founded and to avoid civil war. In an international organization whose members
represent such radically different traditions, interests, and levels of development, the proportion of principle to power is bound to be even
lower. It's a pity that there is no practical alternative to the United Nations, but there isn't. If the abolition of great-power war and the
establishment of international law is truly a hundred-year project, then we are running a bit behind schedule but we have made substantial
progress. We
have not had World War III, and that is thanks at least in part to
the United Nations, which gave the great powers an excuse to back off from several of their most dangerous confrontations
without losing face. No great power has fought another since 1945, and the wars that have broken out between middle-sized powers from time
to time � Arab-Israeli wars and Indo-Pakistani wars, mostly � seldom lasted more than a month, because the U.N.'s offers of ceasefires and
peacekeeping troops offered a quick way out for the losing side. If you assessed the progress that has been made since 1945 from the
perspective of that terrifying time, the glass would look at least half-full. The enormous growth of international organizations since 1945, and
especially the survival of the United Nations as a permanent forum where the states of the world are committed to avoiding war (and often
succeed), has already created a context new to history. The present political fragmentation of the world into more than 150 stubbornly
independent territorial units will doubtless persist for a good while to come. But it is already becoming an anachronism, for, in every other
context, from commerce, technology, and the mass media to fashions in ideology, music, and marriage, the outlines of a single global culture
(with wide local variations) are visibly taking shape. It is very likely that we began our career as a rising young species by exterminating our
nearest relatives, the Neanderthals, and it is entirely possible we will end it by exterminating ourselves, but the fact that we have always had
war as part of our culture does not mean that we are doomed always to fight wars. Other aspects of our behavioral repertoire are a good deal
more encouraging. There is, for example, a slow but quite perceptible revolution in human consciousness taking place: the last of the great
redefinitions of humanity. At all times in our history, we have run our affairs on the assumption that there is a special category of people (our
lot) whom we regard as full human beings, having rights and duties approximately equal to our own, and whom we ought not to kill even when
we quarrel. Over the past 15,000 or 20,000 years we have successively widened this category from the original hunting-and-gathering band to
encompass larger and larger groups. First it was the tribe of some thousands of people bound together by kinship and ritual ties; then the state,
where we recognize our shared interests with millions of people whom we don't know and will never meet; and now, finally, the entire human
race. There was nothing in the least idealistic or sentimental in any of the previous redefinitions. They occurred because they were useful in
advancing people's material interests and ensuring their survival. The same is true for this final act of redefinition: We have reached a point
where our moral imagination must expand again to embrace the whole of mankind. It's no coincidence that the period in which the concept of
the national state is finally coming under challenge by a wider definition of humanity is also the period that has seen history's most catastrophic
wars, for they provide the practical incentive for change. But the transition to a different system is a risky business: The danger of another
world war which would cut the whole process short is tiny in any given year, but cumulatively, given how long the process of change will take, it
is extreme. That is no reason not to keep trying. Our task over the next few generations is to transform the world of independent states in
which we live into some sort of genuine international community. If we succeed in creating that community, however quarrelsome,
discontented, and full of injustice it will probably be, then we shall effectively have abolished the ancient institution of warfare. Good riddance.
This diplomatic approach prevents conflict escalation. Only the AFF can access a large war
impact
Wright 10 – Executive director of studies at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs (Thomas, "Strategic
Engagement’s Track Record," The Washington Quarterly)//NG
The obstacles to a new international order are not just due to free-riding,
barriers to coordination, misunderstandings, or relatively minor
differences, which can eventually be overcome in pursuit of the common
good. There are also significant divergences in preferences and perceived interests. In the Western
order of the Cold War, the closest economic partners of the United States were also its political allies.
These allies not only shared the same problems but also had a broadly similar view about how to tackle
the problem. In today’s global order, however, the United States needs the support of
countries with which it not only disagrees but also views international
politics as a relative-sum game. Unlike the geopolitical competition between the United
States and the Soviet Union or European great power competition of the first half of the twentieth
century, today’s competition takes place within the framework of the existing
international order. It is a competition bound by limitsa struggle for
influence within the order, over the rules, and even limited disputes over
borders and boundaries, rather than a struggle against a belligerent revisionist power intent
on overthrowing the status quo in its entirety. Henry Kissinger noted this distinction in his book, A World
Restored:
A legitimate order does not make conflicts impossible, but it limits their
scope. Wars may occur, but they will be fought in the name of the existing
structure and the peace which follows will be justified as a better expression of
the ‘legitimate,’ general consensus. Diplomacy in the classic sense, the
adjustment of differences through negotiation, is possible only in
‘legitimate’ international orders.49
MULTILAT SOLVES LAUNDRY LIST
Multilateralism is failing now and solves the economy, crime, and global warming
Legler, 10– Professor of Political Science at Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City (Thomas,
“Multilateralism and Regional Governance in the Americas”,
http://www.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2010/06396.pdf)//NG
In the absence of world or regional governments, multilateralism is an anchor for
diverse governance schemes, from addressing international economic
crisis to combatting transnational crime to countering global warming. In
theory, as the main embodiment of multilateralism, formal international organizations contribute in
practical ways to governance challenges, such as the ability to centralize collective activities for member
states or to serve as independent and neutral thirdparty arbiters in conflict resolution. Informal and
formal multilateral groupings can promote the creation of new norms and the construction of new
international regimes, as well as enhance communications, share knowledge, and coordinate
approaches among member states. Nonetheless, the multilateral base for Latin
American and Caribbean regional governance remains relatively weak.
Before LAC leaders can truly seize this historic opportunity, they must address a series of multilateral
challenges, six of which are identified here. Briefly, multilateral governance in the
Americas is impeded by: a tradition of defensive multilateralism; the lack
of strong regional identity; problems of competition and overlapping
mandates caused by multilateral proliferation; the question of who foots
the bill; a club mentality; and the reluctance to delegate national authority
to international organizations.
Multilateralism solves Iran and North Korean Proliferation
Hinderdael, 11– M.A. candidate at SAIS Bologna Center (Klaas, “Breaking the Logjam: Obama's
Cuba Policy and a Guideline for Improved Leadership”, http://bcjournal.org/volume-14/breaking-thelogjam.html?printerFriendly=true)//NG
Conclusion
The two countries’ histories have long been intertwined, particularly after the Monroe Doctrine of 1823
gave rise to the American belief that it would become the hemisphere’s protector. Until the immediate
aftermath of Fidel Castro’s revolution, Cuba provided a testing ground for the promotion of American
ideals, social beliefs, and foreign policies.
In the context of Raúl shifting course in Cuba, the Obama administration has the opportunity to highlight
the benefits of both the use of soft power and a foreign policy of engagement. As evidence
mounts that the United States is ready to engage countries that enact
domestic reforms, its legitimacy and influence will grow. Perhaps future
political leaders, in Iran or North Korea for example, will be more willing to
make concessions knowing that the United States will return in kind.
The United States should not wait for extensive democratization before further engaging Cuba,
however. One legacy of the Cold War is that Communism has succeeded only where it grew out of its
own, often nationalistic, revolutions. As it has with China and Vietnam, the United States should look
closely at the high payoffs stemming from engagement. By improving relations, America can enhance its
own influence on the island’s political structure and human rights policies.
At home, with the trade deficit and national debt rising, the economic costs of the embargo are
amplified. Recent studies estimate that the US economy foregoes up to $4.84 billion a
year and the Cuban economy up to $685 million a year.50While US-Cuban economic
interests align, political considerations inside America have shifted, as “commerce seems to be trumping
anti-Communism and Florida ideologues.”51 Clearly, public opinion also favors a new
Cuba policy, with 65 percent of Americans now ready for a shift in the
country’s approach to its neighboring island.52
At this particular moment in the history of US-Cuban relations, there is tremendous promise
for a breakthrough in relations. In a post-Cold War world, Cuba no longer presents
a security threat to the united States, but instead provides it with economic
potential. American leaders cannot forget the fact that an economic embargo, combined
with diplomatic isolation, has failed to bring democracy to Cuba for over 50
years.
American policymakers should see Cuba as an opportunity to reap the
political, economic, and strategic rewards of shifting its own policies
toward engagement. By ending the economic embargo and normalizing
diplomatic relations with the island, President Obama would indicate that
he is truly willing to extend his hand once America’s traditional adversaries
unclench their fists.
Multilateralism solves every conceivable debate impact
Tharoor, 3– Minister of State for Human Resources Development (Shashi, “Why America Still Needs the
United Nations”, p. 67)//NG
The UN's relevance does not stand or fall on its conduct on any one issue. When the crisis has
passed, the world will still be left with, to use Annan's phrase, innumerable "problems
without passports" -- threats such as the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD), the degradation of our common environment,
contagious disease and chronic starvation, human rights and human
wrongs, mass illiteracy and massive displacement. These are problems that
no one country, however powerful, can solve alone. The problems are the shared
responsibility of humankind and cry out for solutions that, like the problems themselves, also cross
frontiers. The UN exists to find these solutions through the common endeavor
of all states. It is the indispensable global organization for a globalizing
world.
Large portions of the world's population require the UN's assistance to surmount problems they cannot
overcome on their own. As these words are written, civil war rages in Congo and Liberia and sputters in
Cote d'Ivoire, while long-running conflicts may be close to permanent solution in Cyprus and Sierra
Leone. The arduous task of nation building proceeds fitfully in Afghanistan,
the Balkans, East Timor, and Iraq. Twenty million refugees and displaced
persons, from Palestine to Liberia and beyond, depend on the UN for
shelter and succor. Decades of development in Africa are being wiped out by the scourge of hivaids (and its deadly interaction with famine and drought), and the Millennium Development Goals -agreed on with much fanfare in September 2000, at the UN's Millennium Summit, the largest gathering
of heads of government in human history -- remain unfulfilled. Too many countries still lack the
wherewithal to eliminate poverty, educate girls, safeguard health, and provide their people with clean
drinking water. If the UN did not exist to help tackle these problems, they would undoubtedly end up on
the doorstep of the world's only superpower.
The UN is also essential to Americans' pursuit of their own prosperity. Today,
whether one is from Tashkent or Tallahassee, it is simply not realistic to think only in terms of one's own
country. Global forces press in from every conceivable direction; people, goods, and ideas cross borders
and cover vast distances with ever greater frequency, speed, and ease. The Internet is emblematic of an
era in which what happens in Southeast Asia or southern Africa -- from democratic advances to
deforestation to the fight against aids -- can affect Americans. As has been observed about water
pollution, we all live downstream now.
Thus U.S. foreign policy today has become as much a matter of managing
global issues as managing bilateral ones. At the same time, the concept of the nationstate as self-sufficient has also weakened; although the state remains the primary political unit, most
citizens now instinctively understand that it cannot do everything on its own. To function in the world,
people increasingly have to deal with institutions and individuals beyond their country's borders.
American jobs depend not only on local firms and factories, but also on faraway markets, grants of
licenses and access from foreign governments, international trade rules that ensure the free movement
of goods and persons, and international financial institutions that ensure stability. There are thus few
unilateralists in the American business community. Americans' safety, meanwhile, depends
not only on local police forces, but also on guarding against the global
spread of pollution, disease, terror, illegal drugs, and WMD. As the World Health
Organization's successful battle against the dreaded sars epidemic has demonstrated, "problems
without passports" are those that only international action can solve.
Fortunately, the UN and its broad family of agencies have, in nearly six decades of life, built a
remarkable record of expertise and achievement on these issues. The UN has brought humanitarian
relief to millions in need and helped people rebuild their countries from the ruins of war. It has
challenged poverty, fought apartheid, protected the rights of children, promoted decolonization and
democracy, and placed environmental and gender issues at the top of the world's agenda. These are no
small achievements, and represent issues the United States cannot afford to neglect.
The United Nations is a valuable antidote to the tendency to disregard the
problems of the periphery -- the kinds of problems Americans may prefer not to deal with but
that are impossible to ignore. Handling them multilaterally is the obvious way to
ensure they are tackled; it is also the only way. Americans will be safer in a
world improved by the UN's efforts, which will be needed long after Iraq
has passed from the headlines.
KEEPING GULLIVER ON BOARD
The exercise of American power may well be the central issue in world politics today, but
that power is only enhanced if its use is perceived as legitimate. Ironically, although many in Washington
distrust the world body, many abroad think the Security Council is too much in thrall to its most
powerful member. The debates over Iraq proved that that is not always the case; but even if it were, it is
far better to have a world organization that is anchored in geopolitical reality than one that is too
detached from the verities of global power to be effective. A UN that provides a vital
political and diplomatic framework for the actions of its most powerful
member, while casting them in the context of international law and
legitimacy (and bringing to bear on them the perspectives and concerns of its universal
membership) is a UN that remains essential to the world in which we live.
The goals of the charter, however, cannot be met without embracing the fundamental premise that
President Harry Truman enunciated in 1945:
We all have to recognize that no matter how great our strength, we must deny ourselves the license to
do always as we please. No one nation ... can or should expect any special privilege which harms any
other nation. ... Unless we are all willing to pay that price, no organization for world peace can
accomplish its purpose. And what a reasonable price that is!
The UN, from the start, assumed the willingness of its members to accept restraints on their own shortterm goals and policies by subordinating their actions to internationally agreed rules and procedures, in
the broader long-term interests of world order. This was an explicit alternative to the model of past
centuries, when strong states developed their military power to enforce their politics, and weak states
took refuge in alliances with stronger ones. This formula guaranteed large-scale warfare; as Franklin
Roosevelt put it to both houses of Congress after the Allied conference at Yalta, the UN would replace
the arms races, military alliances, balance-of-power politics, and "all the arrangements that had led to
war" so often in the past. The UN was meant to help create a world in which its
member states would overcome their vulnerabilities by embedding
themselves in international institutions, where the use of force would be subjected to
the constraints of international law. Power politics would not disappear from the face of the earth but
would be practiced with due regard for universally upheld rules and norms. Such a system also
offered the United States -- then, as now, the world's unchallenged superpower
-- the assurance that other countries would not feel the need to develop
coalitions to balance its power. Instead, the UN provided a framework for
them to work in partnership with the United States.
This is the system to which the world must now rededicate itself. Votaries of the UN have long argued
that if the world body did not exist, we would have to invent it. Sadly, it is hard to believe that today's
leaders could manage such a feat. Hammarskjold once described the UN as an adventure -- a Santa
Maria battling its way through storms and uncharted oceans to a new world, only to find that the people
on shore blamed the storms on the ship itself. Five decades later, Hammarskjold's metaphor stillholds
true: the UN continues to sail in turbulent waters and is still blamed for the squalls that assail it.
This brings to mind another metaphor: if international institutions serve principally as ropes that tie
Gulliver down, then Gulliver will have every interest in snapping the ropes and breaking free of the
constraints imposed on him. If, however, these institutions constitute a vessel sturdy enough for Gulliver
to sail, and the Lilliputians cheerfully help him man the bridge and hoist the mainsail because they want
to travel to the same destination, then Gulliver is unlikely to jump ship and try to swim on alone. So the
world should similarly hold fast to its determination to live by shared
values and common rules and to steer together the multilateral institutions
that the enlightened leaders of the last century bequeathed to us. Only by
doing so will our ship best the storm -- with Gulliver still on board.?
Multilateralism solves international frameworks that prevent extinction
Masciulli 11—Professor of Political Science at St Thomas University (Joseph, “The Governance
Challenge for Global Political and Technoscientific Leaders in an Era of Globalization and Globalizing
Technologies,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society February 2011 vol. 31 no. 1 pg. 3-5)//NG
What is most to be feared is enhanced global disorder resulting from the
combination of weak global regulations; the unforeseen destructive consequences
of converging technologies and economic globalization; military competition among the great powers; and the
prevalent biases of short-term thinking held by most leaders and elites. But no practical
person would wish that such a disorder scenario come true, given all the
weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) available now or which will surely become available
in the foreseeable future. As converging technologies united by IT, cognitive
science, nanotechnology, and robotics advance synergistically in monitored and
unmonitored laboratories, we may be blindsided by these future
developments brought about by technoscientists with a variety of good or destructive or mercenary
motives. The current laudable but problematic openness about publishing scientific results
on the Internet would contribute greatly to such negative outcomes.
To be sure, if the global disorder-emergency scenario occurred because of postmodern terrorism or rogue states using biological, chemical, or
nuclear WMDs, or a regional war with nuclear weapons in the Middle East or South Asia, there might well be a positive result for global
governance. Such a global emergency might unite the global great and major powers in the conviction that a global concert was necessary for
their survival and planetary survival as well. In such a global great power concert, basic rules of economic, security, and legal order would
be uncompromisingly enforced both globally and in the particular regions where they held hegemonic status. That concert scenario, however, is
flawed by the limited legitimacy of its structure based on the members having the greatest hard and soft power on planet Earth.
At the base of our concerns, I would argue, are human proclivities for narrow,
short-term thinking tied to individual self-interest or corporate and national interests in
decision making. For globalization, though propelled by technologies of various kinds, “remains an
essentially human phenomenon . . . and the main drivers for the
establishment and uses of disseminative systems are hardy perennials: profit, convenience,
greed, relative advantage, curiosity, demonstrations of prowess, ideological fervor, malign
destructiveness.” These human drives and capacities will not disappear. Their “manifestations now extend considerably beyond more familiarly
empowered governmental, technoscientific and corporate actors to include even individuals: terrorists, computer hackers and rogue market
traders” (Whitman, 2005, p. 104).
In this dangerous world, if people are to have their human dignity recognized and
enjoy their human rights, above all, to life, security, a healthy environment, and freedom, we
need new forms of comprehensive global regulation and control. Such
effective global leadership and governance with robust enforcement powers
alone can adequately respond to destructive current global problems, and
prevent new ones. However, successful human adaptation and innovation to our current complex environment through the
social construction of effective global governance will be a daunting collective task for global political and technoscientific leaders and citizens.
For our global
society is caught in “the whirlpool of an accelerating process of
modernization” that has for the most part “been left to its own devices”
(Habermas, 2001, p. 112). We need to progress in human adaptation to and innovation for our complex
and problematical global social and natural planetary environments through global governance. I
suggest we
need to begin by ending the prevalent biases of short-termism in thinking and
acting and the false values attached to the narrow self-interest of individuals,
corporations, and states.
I agree with Stephen Hawking that the long-term future of the human race must be in space. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on
planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. . . . There have been a number of times in the past when its
survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1962 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to
increase in the future. We shall need great care and judgment to negotiate them all successfully. But I’m an optimist. If we can avoid disaster
for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space. . . . But we are entering an increasingly dangerous period of our
history. Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth, are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change
the environment for good or ill. But our genetic code still carries the selfish and aggressive instincts that were of survival advantage in the past.
. . . Our only chance of long term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space. We have made
remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space.” (Hawking,
2010)
Nonetheless, to
reinvent humanity pluralistically in outer space and beyond will require
securing our one and only global society and planet Earth through effective
global governance in the foreseeable future. And our dilemma is that the enforcement powers of
multilateral institutions are not likely to be strengthened because of the competition
for greater (relative, not absolute) hard and soft power by the great and major powers. They seek their
national or alliance superiority, or at least, parity, for the sake of their state’s survival and security now. Unless the
global disorder-emergency scenario was to occur soon—God forbid—the great powers will most likely, recklessly and
tragically, leave global survival and security to their longer term agendas. Pg. 4-5
MULTILATERALISM KEY TO HEGE
Even if heg decline is inevitable, multilateralism solves your transition war arguments
He, 10—Professor of Political Science at Utah State University (Kai He, “The hegemon’s choice between
power and security: explaining US policy toward Asia after the Cold War,” Review of International
Studies (2010), 36, pg. 1121–1143)//NG
When US policymakers perceive a rising or a stable hegemony, the anarchic nature of the international
system is no longer valid in the mind of US policymakers because the preponderant power makes the US immune from military threats. In the
self-perceived, hierarchic international system with the US on the top, power-maximisation
becomes the
strategic goal of the US in part because of the ‘lust for power’ driven by
human nature and in part because of the disappearance of the security
constraints imposed by anarchy. Therefore, selective engagement and hegemonic dominion become two
possible strategies for the US to maximise its power in the world. The larger the power gap between the US and others, the more likely
selective engagement expands to hegemonic dominion. When US policymakers perceive a declining
hegemony in that the power gap between the hegemon and others is narrowed rather than widened, US policymakers begin
to change their hierarchic view of the international system. The rapid decline of relative power causes US
policymakers to worry about security imposed by anarchy even though the US may remain the most powerful
state in the system during the process of decline. Offshore
balancing and multilateralism, therefore,
become two possible policy options for the US to maximise its security under anarchy. The
possible budget constraints during US decline may lead to military withdrawals from overseas
bases. In addition, the US becomes more willing to pay the initial ‘lock-in’ price of
multilateral institutions in order to constrain other states’ behaviour for its own security.
US foreign policy towards Asia preliminarily supports the power-perception
hegemonic model. When President George H. W. Bush came to power, the US faced ‘dual deficits’ even though the US won the
Cold War and became the hegemon by default in the early 1990s. The domestic economic difficulty imposed a declining, or at least uncertain,
hegemony to the Bush administration. Consequently, Bush had to withdraw troops from Asia and conducted a reluctant offshore balancing
strategy in the early 1990s. Although the US still claimed to keep its commitments to Asian allies, the US words with the sword became
unreliable at best.
During President Clinton’s first tenure, how to revive US economy became the first priority of the administration. The perception of a declining
hegemon did not totally fade until the middle of the 1990s when the US economy gradually came out of the recession. Multilateral
institutions, especially APEC, became Clinton’s diplomatic weapon to open Asia’s
market and boost US economy. In addition, the US also endorsed the ARF initiated by the ASEAN states in order to
retain its eroding political and military influence after the strategic retreats in the early 1990s.
However, the US ‘new economy’ based on information technology and computers revived
policymakers’ confidence in US hegemony after the Asian miracle was terminated by the 1997 economic
crisis. The second part of the 1990s witnessed a rising US hegemony and the George W.
Bush administration reached the apex of US power by any measure in the early 21st century.
Therefore, since Clinton’s second tenure in the White House, US foreign policy in general and towards Asia in particular has become more
assertive and power-driven in nature. Besides reconfirming its traditional military alliances in Asia, the US deepened its military engagement in
the region through extensive security cooperation with other Asian states.
The selective engagement policy of the US in the late 1990s was substantially
expanded by the Bush administration to hegemonic dominion after 9/11. The unrivalled hegemony
relieved US of concerns over security threats from any other states in the international system. The ‘lust for power’ without
constraints from anarchy drove US policymakers to pursue a hegemonic dominion policy in the world. The ‘preemption strategy’ and proactive missile defence programs reflected the power-maximising
nature of the hegemonic dominion strategy during the George W. Bush administration.
What will the US do in the future? The power-perception hegemonic model suggests that the US cannot escape the fate of other great powers
in history. When
US hegemony is still rising or at a stable stage, no one can stop US expansion
for more power. When its economy can no longer afford its power-oriented strategy, the US will face the
same strategic burden of ‘imperial overstretch’ that Great Britain suffered in
the 19th century. However, the power-perception hegemonic model also argues that US foreign policy depends on how US policymakers
perceive the rise and fall of US hegemony.
If historical learning can help US policymakers cultivate a prudent perception regarding US hegemony, the early
implementation of offshore balancing and multilateralism may facilitate the soft-landing of declining US
hegemony. More importantly, the real danger is whether the US can make a right choice between power and security when US hegemony
begins to decline. If
US policymakers cannot learn from history but insist on seeking more power instead of
security even though US hegemony is in decline, the likelihood of hegemonic war will increase.
However, if US policymakers choose security over power when US hegemony is in decline, offshore balancing and multilateralism can help the
US maximise security in the future anarchic, multipolar world. Pg. 1141-1143
Multilat leads to global coop and power sharing
Pouliot 11—Professor of Political Science at McGill University (Vincent Pouliot, “Multilateralism as an
End in Itself,” International Studies Perspectives (2011) 12, 18–26)//NG
Because it rests on open, nondiscriminatory debate, and the routine exchange of viewpoints, the multilateral
procedure
introduces three key advantages that are gained, regardless of the specific policies
adopted, and tend to diffuse across all participants. Contrary to the standard viewpoint, according to which a rational preference or
functional imperative lead to multilateral cooperation, here it is the systematic practice of multilateralism
that creates the drive to cooperate. At the theoretical level, the premise is that it is not only what people think that
explains what they do, but also what they do that determines what they think (Pouliot 2010). Everyday multilateralism
is a self-fulfilling practice for at least three reasons. First, the joint practice of multilateralism creates mutually
recognizable patterns of action among global actors. This process owes to the fact that practices structure social interaction (Adler and Pouliot
forthcoming).2 Because they are meaningful, organized, and repeated, practices generally convey a degree of mutual intelligibility that allows
people to develop social relations over time. In the field of international security, for example, the practice of deterrence is premised on a
limited number of gestures, signals, and linguistic devices that are meant, as Schelling (1966:113) put it, to ‘‘getting the right signal across.’’ The
same goes with the practice of multilateralism, which rests
on a set of political and social patterns that
establish the boundaries of action in a mutually intelligible fashion. These
structuring effects, in turn, allow for the development of common frameworks
for appraising global events. Multilateral dialog serves not only to find joint solutions; it also makes it possible for
various actors to zoom in on the definition of the issue at hand—a particularly important step on the global stage. The point is certainly not that
the multilateral procedure leads everybody to agree on everything—that would be as impossible as counterproductive. Theoretically speaking,
there is room for skepticism that multilateralism may ever allow communicative rationality at the global level (see Risse 2000; Diez and Steans
2005). With such a diverse and uneven playing field, one can doubt that discursive engagement, in and of itself, can lead to common lifeworlds.
Instead, what the practice of multilateralism
fosters is the emergence of a shared framework of interaction—
allows global actors to make sense of world
politics in mutually recognizable ways. Of course, they may not agree on the
specific actions to be taken, but at least they can build on an established pattern
of political interaction to deal with the problem at hand—sometimes even before it
emerges in acute form. In today’s pluralistic world, that would already be a considerable achievement. In that sense,
multilateralism may well be a constitutive practice of what Lu (2009) calls ‘‘political
friendship among peoples.’’ The axiomatic practice of principled and inclusive dialog is quite apparent in the way she
for example, a common linguistic repertoire—that
describes this social structure: ‘‘While
conflicts, especially over the distribution of goods and burdens, will inevitably arise, under
conditions of political friendship among peoples, they will be negotiated within a global background context of
norms and institutions based on mutual recognition, equity in the distribution of burdens and benefits of global
cooperation, and power-sharing in the institutions of global governance rather than domination by any group’’ (2009:54–55). In
a world where multilateralism becomes an end in itself, this ideal pattern
emerges out of the structuring effects of axiomatic practice: take the case of NATO, for instance, which has recently had to manage,
through the multilateral practice, fairly strong internal dissent (Pouliot 2006). While clashing views and interests
will never go away in our particularly diverse world, as pessimists are quick to emphasize (for example, Dahl 1999), the
management of discord is certainly made easier by shared patterns of dialog based on mutually
recognizable frameworks. Second, the multilateral procedure typically ensures a
remarkable level of moderation in the global policies adopted. In fact, a quick historical tour
d’horizon suggests that actors engaged in multilateralism tend to avoid radical
solutions in their joint decision making. Of course, the very process of uniting
disparate voices helps explain why multilateralism tends to produce median
consensus. This is not to say that the multilateral practice inevitably leads to lowest common denominators. To repeat, because it
entails complex and often painstaking debate before any actions are taken, the multilateral procedure forces involved actors to devise and
potentially share similar analytical lenses that, in hindsight, make the policies adopted seem inherently, and seemingly ‘‘naturally,’’ moderate.
This is because the debate about what a given policy means takes place before its implementation, which makes for a much smoother ride
when decisions hit the ground. This joint interpretive work, which constitutes a crucial aspect of multilateralism, creates outcomes that are
generally perceived as inherently reasonable. Participation brings inherent benefits to politics, as Bachrach (1975) argued in the context of
democratic theory. Going after the conventional liberal view according to which actors enter politics with an already fixed set of preferences,
Bachrach observes that most of the time people define their interests in the very process of participation. The argument is not that interests
formed in the course of social interaction are in any sense more altruistic. It rather is that the nature and process of political practices, in this
case multilateralism, matter a great deal in shaping participants’ preferences (Wendt 1999). In this sense, not only does the multilateral
practice have structuring effects on global governance, but it is also constitutive of what actors say, want, and do (Adler and Pouliot
forthcoming). Third and related, multilateralism
lends legitimacy to the policies that it
generates by virtue of the debate that the process necessarily entails. There is no
need here to explain at length how deliberative processes that are inclusive of all stakeholders tend to produce outcomes that are generally
considered more socially and politically acceptable. In the long run, the large
ownership also leads to more
efficient implementation, because actors feel invested in the enactment of
solutions on the ground. Even episodes of political failure, such as the lack of UN reaction to the Rwandan
genocide, can generate useful lessons when re-appropriated multilaterally—think of
the Responsibility to Protect, for instance.3 From this outlook, there is no contradiction between efficiency and the axiomatic practice of
multilateralism, quite the contrary. The
more multilateralism becomes the normal or self-evident
practice of global governance, the more benefits it yields for the many stakeholders of global governance. In fact,
multilateralism as an end in and of itself could generate even more diffuse reciprocity than Ruggie had originally envisioned. Not only do its
distributional consequences tend to even out, multilateralism
as a global governance routine also creates self-
reinforcing dynamics and new focal points for strategic interaction. The
axiomatic practice of multilateralism helps define problems in
commensurable ways and craft moderate solutions with wide-ranging ownership—three
processual benefits that further strengthen the impetus for multilateral dialog. Pg. 21-23
2AC LEADERSHIP IMPACT
US primacy prevents global conflict – diminishing power creates a vacuum that causes
transition wars in multiple places
Brooks et al 13 [Stephen G. Brooks is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth
College.G. John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at
Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs. He is also a Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University.William C. Wohlforth
is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. “Don't Come
Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment”, Winter 2013, Vol. 37, No. 3, Pages 751,http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ISEC_a_00107, GDI File]
engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far
more dangerous global security environment. For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas
A core premise of deep
presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance
commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their
security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with influential variants
of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer,
who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive wartemptations, regional rivalries, and even runs
at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two
capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S.
interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to
Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than
advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under
contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used
credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without theAmerican pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this
scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly
present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no
consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a postAmerican Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result
might be a
Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be
destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S.
leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia
where the United States has a substantial military presence? Regarding the
Middle East, the balance begins toswing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed
by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S.
retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And concerning East Asia,
pessimismregarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably
the principal concern expressed by area experts is that
Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear
capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China . It is notable that during the
Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by astill-engaged United States. 75 The second body of
scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism
about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on itsparticular—and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption,
then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state
preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as
research across the social and
other sciences, however,undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for
security but also for prestige, status, and other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In
offense and defense are clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning
they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows
that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive
behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that
addition,
leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive
U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security
environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship.
Offensive realism predicts thatthe withdrawal of the American pacifier will
yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis
instability, nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of
local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional great
leverage,
power war).
MULTILAT SOLVES WARMING
multilateralism creates international cooperation to solve warming
Lee et al 10 –Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resource Governance at Chatham House
(Bernice, “The United States and climate change: from process to action,” 2-23,
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/16489_us0510_lee_grubb.pdf)//NG
Despite the crucial importance of national and regional initiatives, the world ultimately
cannot solve the climate problem without an effective multilateral
approach. Ironically, the election of a more multilateralist US president and the events of 2009
culminating with the Copenhagen Accord have only served to increase debate around the form it might
take and how inclusive it needs to be. In reality, any major deal is always built upon
smaller coalitions of powerful actors. Many proposals have been made for a core of US
leadership, bilateral or trilateral leadership by variants of the US–EU–China/Japan/Asia nexus, the G8,
the G8+5, the G20, or the Major Economies Forum (MEF). Doubtless, action by most of these groupings
is necessary, though it is also of interest that the MEF process did not reach any specific deal until the
relationships fostered during the year were put under the pressure of the Copenhagen summit.
Ultimately all such efforts face serious limitations if there is no recognition of
the need for a truly multilateral framework. This is for three main reasons:
scope, competitiveness and political legitimacy. First, carbon emissions
are so widespread geographically that any subset of countries becomes
increasingly unable to solve the problem unless others are involved. The
dominance of US, EU and Chinese emissions today would be swamped by
2050 if these countries delivered steep reductions while others did not. And
none of these are significant contributors to land-use emissions (such as deforestation), which involve a
wholly different group of countries. Moreover, models which centre upon innovative solutions by a
‘critical mass’ of the private sector diffusing technology and investment globally without government
incentives can founder – carbon capture and storage (CCS), which inevitably involves significant extra
costs over and above coal plants without CCS, is a case in point. Second, a partial solution
that encompassed the big emitters would not solve the perceived risks of
loss of competitiveness in energy-intensive sectors vis-à- vis nonparticipants (to smaller economies such as Singapore, for example). Third, a
deal between the big emitters only is unlikely to secure global legitimacy. In
no legal or moral system can a solution be imposed by those inflicting the
damage, without at some level engaging those that would most suffer the
consequences of inadequate action. Thus all roads ultimately lead back to the
need for a global deal. That was perhaps the most difficult, but ultimately completed, journey
for the Bush administration, as it conceded at the G8 Heiligendamm summit in June 2007 the need for
solutions to be negotiated under UN auspices. Notwithstanding the relative success of the Bali
negotiations, most of the key difficulties, fault lines and questions that arose in the 1990s remained
unresolved. A commentary by David Sandalow23 argued that the Bali battle over emission targets
showed that the EU has learned nothing about realistic engagement with the United States; Japan sat
uneasily in its seat as a potential but never actual mediator on the transatlantic divide; and a resurgent
Russia remained largely apart.
It’s real and anthropogenic –emissions reductions are key to avoid dangerous
climate disruptions
Somerville 11 – Professor of Oceanography @ UCSD
(Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor at Scripps Institution of
Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group I
for the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 3-8-2011,
“CLIMATE SCIENCE AND EPA'S GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS,” CQ Congressional Testimony,
Lexis)//BB
1n early 2007, at the time of the publication of WG1 of AR4, the mainstream global community of climate
scientists already understood from the most recent research that the latest
observations of climate change were disquieting. In the words of a research paper published at the
same time as the release of AR4 WG1, a paper for which I am a co-author, "observational data underscore the
concerns about global climate change. Previous projections, as summarized by IPCC,
have not exaggerated but may in some respects even have underestimated the change " (Rahmstorf et
al. 2007). Now, in 2011, more recent research and newer observations have
demonstrated that climate change continues to occur, and in several
aspects the magnitude and rapidity of observed changes frequently exceed the
estimates of earlier projections , including those of AR4. In addition, the case for attributing much
observed recent climate change to human activities is even stronger now than at the time of
AR4. Several recent examples, drawn from many aspects of climate science, but especially emphasizing
atmospheric phenomena, support this conclusion. These include temperature,
atmospheric moisture content, precipitation, and other aspects of the
hydrological cycle. Motivated by the rapid progress in research, a recent scientific synthesis, The Copenhagen Diagnosis (Allison
et al. 2009), has assessed recent climate research findings, including: -- Measurements show that the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets
are losing mass and contributing to sea level rise. -- Arctic sea-ice has melted far beyond the expectations
of climate models. -- Global sea level rise may attain or exceed 1 meter by 2100,
with a rise of up to 2 meters considered possible. -- In 2008, global carbon
dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were about 40% higher than those in
1990. -- At today's global emissions rates, if these rates were to be sustained unchanged, after only about 20
more years, the world will no longer have a reasonable chance of limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees
Fahrenheit, above 19th-century pre-industrial temperature levels, This is a much- discussed goal for a maximum allowable degree of climate
change, and this aspirational target has now been formally adopted by the European Union and is supported by many other countries, as
expressed, for example, in statements by both the G-8 and G-20 groups of nations. The Copenhagen Diagnosis also cites research supporting the
position that, in
order to have a reasonable likelihood of avoiding the risk of
dangerous climate disruption , defined by this 2 degree Celsius (or 3.6 degree Fahrenheit) limit, global emissions of
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide must peak and then start to decline rapidly within the next five
to ten years, reaching near zero well within this century.
Warming is an existential risk – quickening reductions is key to avoiding extinction
Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
(Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science
Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate Conflict: How global
warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 122)//BB
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario.
Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual
emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which
have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of
in emissions, the effects of climate change in
the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and
security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change couldeven
undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the
knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in
developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers
believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential
threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for
such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case
adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political
changes.
the century." Without early and severe reductions
RELATIONS ADVANTAGE
2NC – CUBA KEY TO LA RELATIONS
Only changing Cuba policy solves – it’s highly symbolic of the US attitude towards the entire
region
Sweig and Bustamante 13 - Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies
and Director for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Ph.D. candidate in Latin
American history at Yale University (Julia E. and Michael J, Cuba After Communism, Foreign Affairs,
Jul/Aug2013, Vol. 92, Issue 4
The geopolitical context in Latin America provides another reason the U.S. government should make a
serious shift on Cuba. For five years now, Obama has ignored Latin America's unanimous
disapproval of Washington's position on Cuba. Rather than perpetuate Havana's
diplomatic isolation, U.S. policy embodies the imperial pretensions of a bygone era ,
contributing to Washington's own marginalization . Virtually all countries in the region
have refused to attend another Summit of the Americas meeting if Cuba is
not at the table. Cuba, in turn, currently chairs the new Community of Latin American and
Caribbean States, which excludes Washington. The Obama administration has begun laying
out what could become a serious second-term agenda for Latin America
focused on energy, jobs, social inclusion, and deepening integration in the
Americas. But the symbolism of Cuba across the region is such that the White
House can definitively lead U.S. -- Latin American relations out of the Cold
War and into the twenty-first century only by shifting its Cuba policy .
To make such a shift, however, Washington must move past its assumption that
Havana prefers an adversarial relationship with the United States. Raúl Castro has
shown that he is not his brother and has availed himself of numerous channels, public and
private, to communicate to Washington that he is ready to talk. This does not mean
that he or his successors are prepared to compromise on Cuba's internal politics; indeed, what Castro is
willing to put on the table remains unclear. But his government's decisions to release more than 120
political prisoners in 2010 and 2011 and allow a number of dissident bloggers and activists to travel
abroad this year were presumably meant to help set the stage for potential talks with the United States.
Meanwhile, the death of Hugo Chávez, the former Venezuelan president, and the narrow margin in the
election of his successor, Nicolás Maduro, have made it clear that Havana has reasons of its own to chart
a path forward with the United States. In the last decade or so, Cuba came to depend on Venezuela for
large supplies of subsidized oil, in exchange for a sizable brigade of Cuban doctors staffing the Chávez
government's social programs. Political uncertainty in Caracas offers a potent reminder of the hazards of
relying too heavily on any one partner. Havana is already beginning to branch out. In addition to
financing the refurbishing of Mariel Harbor, the Brazilians have extended a line of credit to renovate and
expand five airports across the island and have recently signed a deal to hire 6,000 Cuban doctors to fill
shortages in Brazil's rural health coverage. Even so, in the long run, the United States remains a vital
natural market for Cuban products and services.
Of course, as the 1990s proved, even a huge financial setback may not be enough to drive Havana to
Washington's door. Half a century of U.S. economic warfare has conditioned Cuban bureaucrats and
party cadres to link openness at home or toward the United States with a threat to Cuba's
independence. Some hard-liners might prefer muddling through with the status quo to the uncertainty
that could come from a wider opening of their country.
The best way to change such attitudes, however, would be for Washington to
take the initiative in establishing a new diplomatic and economic modus
vivendi with Havana. In the short term, the two countries have numerous practical problems to
solve together, including environmental and security challenges, as well as the fate of high-profile
nationals serving time in U.S. and Cuban prisons. Most of the policy-steps Obama should take at this
stage -- removing Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, eliminating obstacles for all
Americans to travel there, and licensing greater trade and investment -- would not require congressional
approval or any grand bargain with Havana. Although it might be politically awkward in the United
States for a president to be seen as helping Castro, on the island, such measures would strengthen the
case that Cuba can stand to become a more open, democratic society without succumbing to external
pressure or subversion. Deeper commercial ties, moreover, could have repercussions
beyond the economic realm, giving internal reformers more leeway and
increasing support on the island for greater economic and political
liberalization.
In 1991, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev stood beside U.S. Secretary of State James Baker in
Moscow and announced that the Soviet Union would eliminate its multibillion-dollar annual subsidy to
Cuba. CIA analysts and American pundits immediately began predicting the imminent demise of the
Cuban Revolution and a quick capitalist restoration. More than 20 years have passed since then, Fidel
Castro has retired, and 82-year-old Raul Castro is now serving the first year of what he has said will be
his final five-year term as president.
In 2018, when Díaz-Canel takes the reins, Cuba in all likelihood will continue to defy post-Cold War
American fantasies even as it moves further away from its orthodox socialist past. For the remaining
members of Cuba's founding revolutionary generation, such a delicate transformation provides a last
opportunity to shape their legacy. For Cubans born after 1991, the coming years may offer a chance to
begin leaving behind the state of prolonged ideological and economic limbo in which they were raised.
Obama, meanwhile, has a choice. He can opt for the path of least political resistance and allow the
well-entrenched bureaucrats, national security ideologues, and pro-embargo voices in his own country
to keep Cuba policy in a box, further alienating regional allies and
perpetuating the siege mentality among Cuban officials. Or he can dare to
be the president who finally extracts the United States from Cuba's internal
debate and finds a way for Washington and Havana to work together. Both the
Cuban people and U.S. national interests would benefit as a result.
US Cuba policy is the vital internal link – greater economic engagement is the litmus test for
engaging all of Latin America
Perez, 10 – JD, Yale Law (David, “America's Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy Recommendation for
the U.S. State Department” 13 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 187, Spring, lexis)
Anti-Americanism has become the political chant de jour for leaders
seeking long-term as well as short-term gains in Latin American elections. In
Venezuela, the anti-American rhetoric spewed by Hugo Chavez masks his otherwise autocratic
tendencies, while countries like Bolivia and Ecuador tilt further away from
Washington, both rhetorically and substantively. The former expelled the U.S. Ambassador in
October 2008, and the latter has refused to renew Washington's lease on an airbase traditionally used
for counter-narcotics missions. The systemic neglect for eight years during the Bush Administration
meant that political capital was never seriously spent dealing with issues affecting the region. Because of
this, President Bush was unable to get much headway with his proposal to reform immigration, and his
free trade agreement with Colombia encountered significant opposition in Congress. Recent
examples of U.S. unilateralism, disregard for international law and norms,
and a growing financial crisis, have all been seized by a new generation of
populist Latin American leaders who stoke anti-American sentiment.
The region, however, is absolutely critical to our national interest and
security. Over thirty percent of our oil comes from Latin America - more than
the U.S. imports from the Middle East. Additionally, over half of the foreign-born population in the
United States is Latin American, meaning that a significant portion of American society is intrinsically
tied to the region. n1 These immigrants, as well as their sons and daughters, have already begun to take
their place amongst America's social, cultural, and political elite.
Just south of America's borders, a deepening polarization is spreading throughout
the entire region. In the last few years ideological allies in Bolivia, Ecuador,
and Venezuela have written and approved new constitutions that have
consolidated the power of the executive, while extending - or in Venezuela's case
eliminating - presidential term limits. In Venezuela the polarization has been drawn along economic
lines, whereby Chavez's base of support continues to be poor Venezuelans. In Bolivia the polarization
has been drawn along racial lines: the preamble to the new Bolivian constitution, approved in January
2009, makes reference to the "disastrous colonial times," a moment in history that Bolivians of Andeandescent particularly lament. Those regions in Bolivia with the most people of European or mixed descent
have consistently voted for increased provincial autonomy and against the constitutional changes
proposed by President Morales. Perhaps due to its sweeping changes, the new Constitution was
rejected by four of Bolivia's nine provinces. n2 Like Bolivia, Latin America is still searching for its identity.
[*191] Traditionally the U.S. has projected its influence by using varying combinations of hard and soft
power. It has been a long time since the United States last sponsored or supported military action in
Latin America, and although highly context-dependent, it is very likely that Latin American citizens and
their governments would view any overt display of American hard power in the region negatively. n3
One can only imagine the fodder an American military excursion into Latin America would provide for a
leader like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, or Evo Morales of Bolivia. Soft power, on the other hand, can win
over people and governments without resorting to coercion, but is limited by other factors.
The key to soft power is not simply a strong military, though having one helps, but rather an
enduring sense of legitimacy that can then be projected across the globe to
advance particular policies. The key to this legitimacy is a good image and a
reputation as a responsible actor on the global and regional stage. A good
reputation and image can go a long way toward generating goodwill, which
ultimately will help the U.S. when it tries to sell unpopular ideas and
reforms in the region. n4
In order to effectively employ soft power in Latin America, the U.S. must repair its image by going on a
diplomatic offensive and reminding, not just Latin America's leaders, but also the Latin American people,
of the important relationship between the U.S. and Latin America. Many of the problems
facing Latin America today cannot be addressed in the absence of U.S.
leadership and cooperation. Working with other nations to address these
challenges is the best way to shore up legitimacy, earn respect, and repair
America's image. Although this proposal focuses heavily on Cuba, every country in Latin America
is a potential friend. Washington will have to not only strengthen its existing relationships in the region,
but also win over new allies, who look to us for "ideas and solutions, not lectures." n5
When analyzing ecosystems, environmental scientists seek out "keystone species." These are organisms
that, despite their small size, function as lynchpins for, or barometers of, the entire system's stability.
Cuba, despite its size and isolation, is a keystone nation in Latin America,
having disproportionately dominated Washington's policy toward the
region for decades. n6 As a result of its continuing tensions with Havana,
America's reputation [*192] in the region has suffered, as has its ability to
deal with other countries. n7 For fifty years, Latin American governments
that hoped to endear themselves to the U.S. had to pass the Cuba "litmus
test." But now the tables have turned, and the Obama Administration, if it
wants to repair America's image in the region, will have to pass a Cuba litmus
test of its own. n8 In short, America must once again be admired if we are going
to expect other countries to follow our example. To that end, warming relations
with Cuba would have a reverberating effect throughout Latin America , and would go a
long way toward creating goodwill.
OAS ADD-ON
Embargo repeal strengthens the OAS and restores LA relations
Lake, 10– Professor of Social Sciences, distinguished professor of political science at UC San Diego (David
A., “Making America Safe for the World: Multilateralism and the Rehabilitation of US authority”,
http://dss.ucsd.edu/~dlake/documents/LakeMakingAmericaSafe.pdf)//NG
Washington's relations with Latin America—particularly in terms of the gap between what its policy
toward the region is and what it could be—precisely measure the degree to which domestic ideologies,
narrow corporate and sectional interests, and a sclerotic political system are hastening the decline of
the United States as a global power. As a result, the U.S. is deepening its dependence on unstable
policies in order to leverage its dwindling influence in the hemisphere.
It is easy to imagine an improved U.S. diplomacy toward Latin America, designed not to advance a set of
altruistic ideals but merely to defend its interests—broadly defined to mean stable politics and
economies that are open to U.S. capital and commodities—and to achieve what those in the liberal wing
of the foreign policy establishment have long advocated: a maximization of U.S. "soft power." Harvard's
Joseph S. Nye defines soft power as "the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than
coercion," through an enhanced understanding and utilization of multilateral institutions, mutually
beneficial policies, cultural exchanges, and commercial relations.1
There are no immediate threats to the U.S. in Latin America. A majority of
the region's political elite—even most of its current governing leftists—share many of
the same values the United States claims to embody, even more so following
the election of the first African-American president, who is wildly popular
in Latin America. As a result, there is no other place in the world that offers U.S. president Barack
Obama the opportunity to put into place the kind of intelligent foreign policy that he and his closest
advisors, such as United Nations (U.N.) ambassador Susan Rice, believe is necessary to stop the
hemorrhaging of U.S. prestige—one that would both improve Washington's ability to deploy its many
competitive advantages, while removing key points of friction.
Here's what such a policy could look like: Washington would concede to longstanding Brazilian demands
by reducing tariffs and subsidies that protect the U.S. agricultural industry, opening its market to
Brazilian commodities, especially soy and sugar, as well as value-added ethanol. It would yield on other
issues that have stalled the proposed Free Trade [End Page 15] Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), such
as a demand for strident intellectual property rights enforcement, which Brazil objects to because it
would disadvantage its own pharmaceutical industry and hinder its ability to provide low-cost medicine
to those infected with the HIV virus. Such concessions would provide an incentive for Brasilia to take the
lead in jumpstarting the FTAA, a treaty that would ultimately benefit U.S. corporations, yet would be
meaningless without Brazil, South America's largest and most dynamic economy.
The U.S. would scale back its military operations in Colombia—including recent controversial plans to
establish a series of military bases which have raised strong criticisms from the governments of Chile,
Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Venezuela. Brazil's president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—who is
entering the last year of his second and last term—has become the spokesperson for the collective
discontent, an indication of his country's regional authority. In exchange for the U.S. dialing down its
military presence, a soon-to-be post-Lula Brazil might find it convenient to tilt away from Venezuela and
toward the United States. Washington would also drop the five-decade-old trade
embargo on Cuba, thus burying a Cold War relic that continues to tarnish
the U.S. image. Normalizing relations with Cuba would create an additional
enticement for Brazil to cooperate with the U.S., since its formidable agroindustry is beginning to invest in Cuba and is therefore well-placed to
export to the U.S. market.
Politically, Washington would formally recommit to a multilateral foreign
policy, even as it set up a de facto arrangement with Brazil to administer the
region. This would mean demonstrating its willingness to work through the
Organization of American States (OAS). More importantly, it would mean leashing the
quasi-privatized "democracy promotion" organizations—largely funded by the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED) and the Agency for International Development, and run by the International
Republican Institute—that have become vectors of transnational, conservative coalition building
throughout the hemisphere. These groups today do overtly what the CIA used to do covertly, as NED's
first president, Allen Weinstein, admitted—they fund oppositional "civil society" groups that use the
rhetoric of democracy and human rights to menace Left governments throughout the region, including
the promotion of an aborted coup in Venezuela in 2002 and successful ones in Haiti in 2004 and
Honduras in 2009.2 Similar destabilization efforts tried to topple Bolivia's Evo Morales in 2008 but failed,
at least partly because Brazil and Chile let it be known that they would not accept those kinds of
machinations in their backyards. It would be easy for the Obama administration to rein these groups in,
and to agree to Latin American demands to make their funding more transparent and their actions more
accountable.
Washington would also take a number of other initiatives to modernize hemispheric diplomacy,
including deescalating its failed "War on Drugs," as Latin America's leading intellectuals and
policymakers—including many former presidents—are demanding; [End Page 16] in the last few
months, both Mexico and Argentina have legalized some drug use and possession, including small
quantities of cocaine and heroin.3 The U.S. would renew its assault weapons ban, as Mexico—battered
by over five thousand narcotics-related murders a year, many of them committed with smuggled U.S.
guns—is begging. It could also pass meaningful immigration reform, providing a path to U.S. citizenship
for the millions of undocumented Latin Americans, mostly from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean,
and the Andes, but also Brazil. Such a move would go a long way toward improving relations with
southern neighbors. It would also be good domestic politics for the Democrats, guaranteeing the loyalty
of the Latino vote in 2012 and moving Texas, by creating millions of new voters, closer to swing-state
status. It could also provide progressives and the Democratic Party with a real wedge issue: Catholics,
increasingly pulled into the conservative camp by issues such as abortion and gay rights, overwhelmingly
favor immigration reform.
Any one of the above steps would go far in reestablishing U.S. legitimacy in
Latin America. Taken together they could serve as a diplomatic revolution, one
which would not weaken U.S. power but consolidate it much the way the
Good Neighbor Policy did, allowing Washington to project its power in the
region through stable multilateral mechanisms freed from the burdens of
confrontation and militarism. A retooled FTAA, updated for the post-Great Recession world
and stripped of the ideological baggage of failed neoliberal globalization, might provide a blueprint for a
sustainable regional economy, one that balances national development and corporate profit.4 And like
the Good Neighbor Policy, a reinvigorated hemispheric diplomacy could serve as a
model for the rest of the world, a design for a practical twenty-first century
multilateralism, capable of responding to transnational problems—both
those that concern liberals, such as climate change, poverty, and migration,
and those that concern conservatives, such as crime and terrorism—while
respecting, at least rhetorically, the sovereignty of individual nations. In short, the Western Hemisphere
offers an unparalleled opportunity to realize the vision of Barack Obama's September 2009 address to
the United Nations—hailed by many as a clarion call for a new internationalism—to, in his words,
"embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect."
That solves drugs and democracy
Horwitz, 10– Ph. D in International Studies, Professor at University of Miami (Betty, “The role of the
Organization of American States in the promotion of a multilateral framework for regional
governance”)//NG
If the OAS succeeds in its efforts, then we can expect to see that in the Western hemisphere
in the issue-area of security: 1) CICAD establishes an autonomous drug regime; 2) narcotrafficking is confronted multilaterally; 3) regional institutions allow for
the control and enforcement of laws relating to drug production, traffic and
consumption, and other related crimes; and 4) the threat of the drug problem starts
to be controlled. In the good governance issue-area: 1) democratic elections are
regularly held and certified; 2) military coups are nonexistent; 3) in the
aftermath of a monitored electoral process, elected officials use democratic institutions
to govern, mediate domestic conflict adhering to the rule of law, and
negotiate with their local opposition groups; 2) political elites choose to
strengthen democratic institutions and adhere to the rule of law; 3) a
decreasing tendency toward the traditional impunity exhibited by political
and economic elites can be observed; 4) neighboring states stop tolerating
domestic violations to democratic institutions and processes allowing and
supporting IOs like the OAS to directly intervene; 5) US and Latin American states
increasingly relate to each other, cooperate and work through
bureaucracies like the OAS; and 6) the OAS intra-elite negotiation spaces
continue to operate and expand.
Latin American democracy key to global democracy
Hillman, 2 – Ph.D., Professor and Director, Institute for the Study of Democracy and Human Rights,
St. John Fisher College (Richard S., Democracy and Human Rights in Latin Americai, Preface, p. vii) //SP
Latin American experiences, especially in the areas of democratization and
human rights protection, are particularly relevant for developing countries that
are attempting to build stable political and economic systems in order to
provide a decent standard of living and incorporate previously excluded
populations into the national mainstream. The past record, of course, is far from
acceptable. The advent of the twenty-first century, however, appears to be a time
of great potential progress for the institutionalization of democratic human
rights regimes that would reduce human pain and suffering. The number of
countries in Latin America and elsewhere that are experimenting with
democracy has never been greater. Clearly, the path toward fulfilling the expectations
raised by these experiments is not an easy one; it is fraught with difficult obstacles deriving from the
historical legacy as well as contemporary challenges. Nevertheless, democracy and human rights have
definitively entered the political lexicon and discourse throughout the world.
Democracy prevents extinction
Diamond 1995 - Hoover Institute Senior Fellow (Larry, “Promoting Democracy in the 1990s,”
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/fr.htm)
nationalist
aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through
increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly
corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to
proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered.
Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the
weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. The
experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly
democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to
aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their
own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor
terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten
one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the
long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally
responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of
their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal
obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret.
Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights,
and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of
international security and prosperity can be built.
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia
2AC BRAZIL ADD-ON (TERROR)
Embargo repeal solves Brazilian relations
Briger, 9– COHA Research Associate (Lilly, “Obama and the Gatekeeper: President Lula Comes to
Washington”, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0903/S00315.htm)//NG
On Saturday, President Barack Obama will meet with Brazilian President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva in
Washington. It is the first time Obama will meet with a Latin American head of state as President.
Although it appears that energy policy will monopolize the meeting, Lula will undoubtedly
also address needed changes in U.S. policy towards both Cuba and
Venezuela. Diplomats in Brasilia have made it very clear that the most
tangible manifestation of real change in Washington’s Latin America policy
would be a rapprochement with Cuba. Brazilian Foreign Minister, Celso Amorim, captured
this sentiment most recently when he asserted, “I think the best thing would be to raise
the trade embargo on Cuba immediately…it’s impossible not to talk about
the Cuban embargo. It’s indicative of U.S. policy toward the region.
That solves terrorism
Brown, 13– Thesis for Master of Strategic Studies (Lawrence T., “Restoring the Unwritten Alliance in
Brazil-United States Relations”, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA560773&quot;&gt;&lt;span)//NG
The United States has long worried about the “Tri-Border Area” (The TBA is the
name given to the area surrounding the border shared between Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay). In
these border towns, laws are minimally enforced, money is laundered, and
weapons, drugs, and people are trafficked. Organized crime and Islamic extremism have
thrived there due to a lack of effective law enforcement from the three border nations.45 Concerns
increased after 9/11 that Al-Qaeda could transit potentially porous borders,
perhaps through Mexico, to attack U.S. interests in North America.46 Today, as
the specter of war with Iran rises because of its purported pursuit of nuclear weapons, the concern
has moved from devastating attacks from Al-Qaeda to devastating attacks
from Hezbollah and its patron Iran. As recently as October 2011, Iran was accused of
authorizing and financing an assassination attempt against the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United
States and of contemplating further attacks in Argentina.47 Successful terrorist attacks
against Argentina were carried out in 1992 and 1994 by a Hezbollah
militant organization supported by Iran. Terrorists exploited the TBA during each
operation.48 The most telling evidence of potential terrorist attacks out of the TBA surfaced during a
Hezbollah militiaman’s interview by the Spanish television station Telemundo. During the interview, the
Hezbollah militant stated emphatically that if the United States attacked Iran, then Hezbollah would
conduct retaliatory attacks inside the United States.49 One counterterrorism expert, Edward Luttwak,
described Hezbollah’s most important base outside Lebanon as the TBA from which they have already
supported terrorist attacks: “The northern region of Argentina, the eastern region
of Paraguay and even Brazil are large terrains, and they have an organized
training and recruitment camp for terrorists.”50 The historical evidence of terrorist
activity emanating from the TBA is chilling. If the current crisis with Iran is not resolved by the time of
the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics, then the Brazilian government will need
substantial help in preventing potential terrorist attacks to disrupt games
that will attract a global audience. Even now, Hezbollah terrorists may be
inclined to strike at Israeli or American targets in the Western Hemisphere
in retaliation for a recent UNSC resolution that placed additional sanctions
on Iran. Hezbollah attacked its targets in Argentina for lesser reasons in 1992 and 1994.51 This is
why intelligence sharing with Brazil must start now. The last time the United States held a 3+1 Group
Meeting (Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, and the United States) on TBA security was in 2004.52 This Group
should re-convene at the earliest opportunity to assess the current terrorist threat within the TBA and
to determine the probabilities of Hezbollah becoming operational if Iran is attacked.53 Nevertheless,
collaborative intelligence initiatives must extend to the World Cup and Olympic timeframes if Iran
continues to violate UNSC resolutions concerning its nuclear program. It is in both countries national
interests to prevent attacks against their homeland. Certainly, Brazil does not want its territory utilized
as a springboard for attacks within the region. Full cooperation in this security arena
will assist in preventing the unthinkable until the Iran crisis over-dual use
nuclear material is resolved.
Extinction
Ayson 10, Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies:
New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, 2010 (“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging
Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to
Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld)
But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable.
It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an
act of nuclear terrorism, could
precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear
weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s
and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear
arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were
considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a
considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive
inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia
and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state
sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior
that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how
might
the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile
material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian
stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a
particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris
resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in
tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and
collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis:
the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important …
some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act
of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials
refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all)
suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the
United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of
North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in
this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if
the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against
a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or
China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these
major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to
assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to
increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited
armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each
other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The
reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited
conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a
possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s
early response to a terrorist
nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an
unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For
example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the
terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the
country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of
alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against
the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might
mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear
force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that
any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.
1AR MIDDLE POWER IMPACT
Additionally, Brazil acts as a middle power to bolster US efforts at cooperation
Brown, 13– Thesis for Master of Strategic Studies (Lawrence T., “Restoring the Unwritten Alliance in
Brazil-United States Relations”, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA560773&quot;&gt;&lt;span)//NG
Brazil’s Initiative for Cooperation The last area of convergence and cooperation is not an American one,
but a Brazilian one. Brasília is as interested as the United States in a stronger relationship. The former
Brazil Foreign Minister who is now the Defense Minister, Celso Amorin, recognized that there was
enormous potential for structured cooperation between Brazil and the
United States in areas of the world like Africa where there is great need for
development and stability.57 Minister Amorin has cited the trilateral cooperation agreement
among Brazil, Guinea-Bissau, and the United States as an example of productive cooperation. This was a
first of its kind agreement for the United States and Brazil in Africa. 58 These trilateral
agreements make strategic sense because bilateral agreements between the
United States and relatively poor countries usually elicit criticism that the
world’s only superpower is engaging in exploitive neo-colonialism. Having
itself been a Portuguese colony, Brazil is viewed as a moderating influence on
perceived expansive U.S. foreign policy. Brazil is also considered a friendly
observer to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) of 120 countries that are
distrustful of superpower diplomacy.59 Plainly spoken, if Brazil is part of an
U.S. agreement with an impoverished country, that country feels more
comfortable making an agreement with the United States because Brazil, a
guarantor of U.S. intentions, is part of it. Brazil welcomes this role because it enhances
its position as a regional and world leader, establishes a singularly special diplomatic relationship with
the United States, and fulfills two of Brazil’s foreign policy action areas. 60 And its role as a third party
broker does not end with Africa or other poor regions. Brazil sees itself as a viable broker
for peace as evidenced with its last-ditch diplomatic effort with Iran that
attempted to resolve the uranium processing crisis.61 Minister Amorin shared his
idea to expand trilateral frameworks to Secretary Clinton during President’s Rousseff’s inauguration.
Although she seemed open to it at the time, there is no evidence of further action. 62 An opportunity
presented, one hopes that this was not an opportunity missed with Brazil. It aligns impeccably with
President Obama’s pursuit of more partnerships and greater burden-sharing.
1AR XT– PLAN SOLVES RELS
Multilateralism resolves Brazilian mistrust and fosters cooperation
Brown, 13– Thesis for Master of Strategic Studies (Lawrence T., “Restoring the Unwritten Alliance in
Brazil-United States Relations”, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA560773&quot;&gt;&lt;span)//NG
Appointing an ambassador to UNASUR, like the United States already does for the European Union (EU)
and the Organization of American States (OAS), is one measure that would immediately demonstrate
practical U.S. support for regional “economic and security mechanisms,” as stated in the NSS. There
are benefits for the United States in doing so. Latin American multilateral
institutions like UNASUR provide an alternative to Hugo Chavez’s version
of Bolivarianism within the region, a definite concern of the United States. Instead of
criticizing the policies of the Venezuelan regime directly, Brazil has decided to use its own example of
establishing generally good relations throughout the world to encourage Hugo Chavez to act more
rationally than he would if confronted directly about his radical tendencies. This approach has
apparently worked.40 By participating as an active observer in regional
organizations, and by establishing formal diplomatic relations with
UNASUR, the United States would do much to extinguish any lingering
doubts about the “Colossus of the North.”41 Brazil’s regional activism
enables the United States to focus its diminishing foreign aid budget on the
unstable parts of the developing world. These proposed diplomatic
initiatives are good faith measures crafted to lay the groundwork for
greater friendship. They should allay Brazilian concerns regarding sovereignty and reciprocity.
Additionally, more positive U.S. – Brazil relations will facilitate future bilateral
cooperation on economic and defense measures regionally and throughout
the world.
AG ADVANTAGE
AT: TRADE KILLS CUBAN AG
Terminally N/U – one way trade now
Wolfson, 10 - practicing psychiatrist/psychotherapist in the Bay Area (Phil, “Cuba Sí’ Tikkun Magazine,
Sept/Oct, http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/cuba-si)
But the water problem of Havana is not just about the embargo. It is also about capital accumulation.
And if there is one overarching historical failure of leadership, it is the lack of clarity and success in this
nearly fifty-year-old, erratic, planned economy. For it is one thing to defend the Revolution, to stave off
the hostile U.S. giant, and it is another to become a client state of the contending giant -- the USSR -with its terrible history of bureaucracy, stagnation, and failure to anticipate and thrive, not to mention
its failure to create better, democratic, and more fun lives for its citizens. And that dependency is not an
excuse for not building an independent economy, as if states and conditions were permanent and not in
constant flux. If you take foreign money, at least struggle for your own conditions and your own
economic needs, for self-sufficiency in vital industries such as agriculture. Don't let your cement plants
disintegrate. Don't let your agriculture decline in favor of foreign imports. Build up what you have as
resources -- use labor and horticulture, tap the sun, grow plants, irrigate, grow soy and nuts and stuff
that feeds -- so that when change occurs you have some resilience. Please! Although sugar no longer
serves as the main engine of the Cuban economy (sugar production is down to 1.5 million tons or so
from its Soviet era levels of 7 million to 8 million tons, so Cuba is no longer a factor in the global sugar
economy and has little to export), special trade relations that are predictably fragile and subject to
political winds still grease the vulnerable economy. For example, Cuba maintains a special relationship
with Venezuela in which the Chavez government provides oil at bargain prices in exchange for doctors
and health care workers and, no doubt, political support. Another case in point involves the billion-plus
dollars that flow from relatives in the United States to relatives in Cuba. This remittance economy
creates harsh inequities -- one needs to have a relative to buy the good stuff -- and moreover the United
States could cut this revenue stream off at any time, forcing Cuba to suffer. Less well known is the fact
that Cuba imports 50 percent of its foodstuffs from abroad, and 50 percent
of these imports, including soy, wheat, rice, and poultry, come from the United States. With
Cuba not allowed to sell anything to the United States -- the embargo again -- the
trade imbalance is deliberately profitable to the U.S. agricultural industry.
Wow!
Two-way trade is key - Cuba’s model will outcompete the industrial ag model
Cornell and Patel, 9 – both write for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Christina and Tara, “Cuba
Elevates Urban Gardening To a Cause” 4/17,
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11525
Since the development of urban agriculture in Havana, production has
increased exponentially, with the harvest of fresh herbs and vegetables jumping a thousand
fold from 4,000 tons to 4.2 million tons between 1994 to 2005. The introduction of locally grown,
organic agricultural products has significantly benefitted the typical Cuban diet. The environment of
Cuba’s cities has immensely profited in terms of both climate change and aesthetics. Plots that were
previously eyesores and de facto garbage dumps have been transformed into productive land. The social
and economic environment has enjoyed the creation of sizeable sources of urban employment as well as
the robust incorporation of women and youth into the workforce.
Although Havana constitutes only 0.67 percent of the total area of the island, 20 percent of Cuba’s
population is concentrated in the capital. The immense agricultural production capable in this small area
could be considerable. This production rate is largely due to the overarching organizational structure of
Havana’s urban agricultural model. Clearly fundamental to the success of this paradigm is the coherent,
central direction that the socialist government provides. In spite of this collective approach, a certain
amount of decentralization exists allowing citizens wide pathways to guide marketing and production.
The central government offers support and an organizational backbone, while the decentralized arms
furnished by the planning model permit decision-making to be made by producers and encourage local
solutions to local problems. Thus, urban agriculture in Havana is a model of urban
self-sufficiency worthy of imitation.
Havana and the Outside World
By incorporating modern farming methods into its economy, Cuba has experienced considerable
advancements that have allowed the country to address many of its structural as well as life-style
shortcomings, particularly the security of its people, the environment and the economy. The former
food-supply problem plunged the Cuban economy into a downward spiral of hunger and despair.
However, by fostering agricultural awareness, the country was able to attain enhanced levels of food
sovereignty and security. This increased allocation of edibles has contributed enormously to the opening
of society. Resources are now accessible and affordable to the general public and the creation of
infrastructure accommodates more labor and increased wages. Thus, the changes Cuba has made have
generated a positive interaction between the community and economy.
Many worry whether Cuba’s budget and planning services will be able to
maintain its commitment to urban agriculture and sustainable methods, as
the country enters the global economy and faces pressures to restructure its economic
and political system, especially as Washington nears a decision to lift the U.S.- Cuba
trade embargo. As the economy opens, the tourism industry and multinational food
corporations will compete for urban land and attempt to flood the Cuban
market with cheap imported food products that could undermine the urban agricultural
system. Havana must develop policies that will protect their growing agricultural sector, but also allow
for international influence and trade to flourish.
Although the opening of trade relations threatens local food production,
Cuba’s success in the agriculture industry makes it a substantial contender in the
global market . Its products are competitively priced and thus, have the ability to
generate a considerable profit for the island nation. Not only will increased participation in international
trade boost revenue, but it could also promote social reform in the country. Cuba’s urban centers, once
underdeveloped and filthy, are now encouraging progressive goals, targeting rising living standards and
sanitation concerns, while promoting national initiatives that will support future improvements in the
urban landscapes.
Agriculture for the Future
Cuba’s successful implementation of urban agriculture should serve as a model
for other developing countries, particularly in Latin America. By embracing more modern and
effective methods of farming, countries theoretically have the opportunity to transform their local
markets, augmenting the labor force and cultivating capital and infrastructure. Introduction to the
global market would allow a country like Cuba to become an important economic actor ,
ultimately expanding its profits through competitive transactions and trade.
Cuban ag is resilient and lifting the embargo facilitates the transfer of expertise globally
Zunes, 2k - associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the
University of San Francisco (Stephen, “Cuba’s New Revolution” Design/Builder, August
http://stephenzunes.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Cubas-New-Revolution.pdf)
Most of Cuba's ecological innovations were made more out of necessity than by design. However, the
Cubans believe that many of these changes are here to stay, even if the availability of
fossil fuels and chemical agents improve . “We will never go back,” one farmer told me “I'm sorry it
took us so long to figure this out” Indeed, as a number of Cuban scientists pointed out,
sooner or later all countries will have to make the transition to a more
environmentally sustainable economy.
“The revolution and the U S. embargo freed us from having to follow the U 8.
model of development,“ says Raoul Guiterrez, who works for a tour agency. “Unfortunately, we
ended up following the Soviet model, which didn’t work either. Now, we have been forced to do
what we should have done from the beginning - find a Cuban model, sensitive to our
country‘s cultural, economic, and environmental needs.”
Environmental education is taught in every grade at every level of education There are prime-time radio
and television shows on environmental themes. There is a major cleanup of Havana Harbor, thanks to a
grant from Scandinavian countries. There is a major recycling program focusing on glass, aluminum,
card-- board, and paper collected from every urban neighborhood and many smaller towns as well. High
school students are recruited, with the incentive of cash donations for their schools, to collect recyclable
materials. There is a growing emphasis on natural medical practices, including homeopathy, Eastern
traditions, and traditional Cuban medicines. Green pharmacies are in most towns and neighborhoods,
and alternative medicine is a recognized specialization in Cuban medical schools.
The greening of Cuba would allow for an unprecedented degree of
opportunities for environmental architects, appropriate-technology
specialists, organic farming consultants, and others from the United States, yet
such assistance is deemed illegal by the Clinton Administration, which has threatened those
willing to provide such aid with fines and jail terms. It is ironic that pressure against Cuba has increased
as it has moved away from the old rigid Communist development strategies to embracing Green
development strategies. Yet perhaps a Green Cuba actually is a bigger threat than a
Red Cuba. The Communist model was clearly unsustainable on many levels. Yet
a Green model actually serves as a viable alternative to the foreigninvestment driven, capital-intensive model promoted by the United States, the
World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. Indeed, Cuba may
constitute the threat of a good example, which is perhaps the biggest threat of all.
Existing oil investment will collapse the Cuba model
King 12- Visiting Assistant Professor at Brown University’s Center for Environmental Studies
(M. Dawn, “Cuban Sustainability: The Effects of Economic Isolation on Agriculture and Energy” per
Presentation for the Western Political Science Association Portland, OR, March 21-24, 2012,
http://wpsa.research.pdx.edu/meet/2012/kingmdawn.pdf)//HA
Despite the potential to become more sustainable with a purposive and focused
opening of the economy, the recent surge in joint venture investment on
expanding domestic oil extraction, petrochemical facilities, and oil refinery
infrastructure reveals a trend toward decreasing environmental
sustainability. Once heralded as the world’s most sustainable country by
coupling environmental performance indicators with their human development scores, Cuba is slipping
further away from this goal . Perhaps the most distressing part of this current trend is that it took Cuba
decades to create a national identity that embraced sustainable environmental practices in both the
energy and agricultural sector, and it seemingly took only a couple of years to derail these efforts.
Undoubtedly, conservation efforts and sustainable education programs can only satiate citizen’s energy
desires to a certain point. In order to further the quality of life in the country, electric production must
increase to rural areas with little energy infrastructure and to Havana in order to spur foreign
investment and domestic small business growth.
Cuba’s trade agreement with Venezuela is bringing in much-needed petroleum for electricity
production, but their dependence on a relatively unstable country for crude is
trapping them into the same relationship that crippled their economy in
1990 – impairing their original goal of self-sufficiency. Cuba is at a turning point in their
path toward environmental sustainability, and the current need for
immediate foreign capital and increased energy production seem to be
trumping its desire to achieve development sustainably. Cuba still has enough
centralized control to leap-frog dirty electric production for cleaner renewable forms of energy and the
potential to guide development strategies that emphasize investments in and research on renewable
energy. It can utilize its expertise on organic farming strategies to increase sugar production in a much
more ecologically friendly manner than their monoculture approach in the 1970s and 80s. Decisions
made in the next five years will demonstrate whether Cuba embraces their newly created national
identity as a society striving for sustainable development or rejects the goal of sustainable development
to increase short-term capital and energy needs.
Lifting sanctions jumpstarts sugar ethanol investment – decreases reliance on oil
King 12- Visiting Assistant Professor at Brown University’s Center for Environmental Studies
(M. Dawn, “Cuban Sustainability: The Effects of Economic Isolation on Agriculture and Energy” per
Presentation for the Western Political Science Association Portland, OR, March 21-24, 2012,
http://wpsa.research.pdx.edu/meet/2012/kingmdawn.pdf)//HA
The “special period in peacetime” transformed Cuban agricultural practices toward a
more sustainable, organic, low-input system. However, from the late 1990s to the mid-2000s,
Cuban agricultural outputs began decreasing. Sugar production went from around 8.4
million
tons per year in 1990 to a meager 1.5 million tons by 2007-2008 (Elledge 2009). Given the goals
of the “special period” to decrease monoculture practices and increase food production, this
statistic may not be all that surprising, yet total agricultural production fell 22% from 2000-2005
(Nova-Ganzález 2006) while basic food production declined another 8% from 2007-2008
(Elledge 2009). Further, Cuban dependence on U.S. food imports increased from $4.3 million in
purchases in 2001 to $340 million in 2006 (Alvarez 2004, 1; Weissert 2011)1 , and urban agricultural
plots decreased from 26,600 in 1997 to 9744 by 2000 (Premat 2005, 154-155)2 . Certainly, the decrease
in sugar production is attributable to more than just increasing basic food production.
In the early 2000s, the Castro government shut down half of the countries’ 156 sugar
mills due to deteriorating infrastructure (Elledge 2009). A lack of national capital has led to
many infrastructure problems throughout Cuba, but the disappearance of the sugar
industry, once
the cause of Cuba’s depleted soil conditions and lack of diverse food production, may lead to
even more economic vulnerability for the country. Most of Cuba’s electric cogeneration is
coupled with sugar production. A decrease in sugar production equates to a heavier
reliance on
fossil fuels, something Cuba does not want and cannot afford. With global sugar prices
on the
rise, partially due to an increase in world demand for sugarcane ethanol, Cuba can use what it
learned in the “special period” to produce more sustainable sugarcane. Nicholas Elledge (2009)
from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, argues that by “using state of the art technology, a
sugar mill can generate over 10 times the electricity needed for its own operation…roughly
equivalent to adding 4 power plants to the island” and that “an action as simple as modernizing
the existing mills would… represent more than a 50% increase…to the system’s power
capacity.” Given Cuba’s dire need for capital and the fact that food production has decreased
over the past decade anyway, one means to achieving Cuba’s goal of self-sufficiency
could be
increasing sugar production. This, of course, requires opening the market up to partial
outside
investment – an institutional change that may also aid in increasing total food
production.
Dependence on Venezuela is collapsing Cuban sustainable ag now
King 12- Visiting Assistant Professor at Brown University’s Center for Environmental Studies
(M. Dawn, “Cuban Sustainability: The Effects of Economic Isolation on Agriculture and Energy” per
Presentation for the Western Political Science Association Portland, OR, March 21-24, 2012,
http://wpsa.research.pdx.edu/meet/2012/kingmdawn.pdf)//HA
While only a limited amount of data is available for Cuba, the World Bank successfully traced Cuban
fertilizer consumption, fossil-fuel energy consumption, and foreign direct investment from 2000-2010
(see graph 1). When these numbers are plotted out over a time, fertilizer consumption and
fossil fuel energy consumption increase steadily over the decade while
direct foreign investment spikes dramatically from 2008-2010. The same
agricultural system praised internationally for its decreased use of
chemical fertilizers throughout the 1990s is slowly bringing these less
sustainable inputs back into the farming system. Certainly, the real Cuban goal of the
“special period” was to increase Cuban self-sufficiency and decrease dependence on foreign imports,
not sustainable development per se. With the increased availability of domestic and
Venezuelan oil, more chemical fertilizers are produced in Cuba, with a plan for
increased production in the next few years (Pinón 2010a) in an attempt to grow more on their limited
agricultural land. The increase in fossil fuel energy consumption (as a percentage of
total consumption) can also be attributed to an increase in domestic drilling and
Venezuelan crude imports. This strengthens Cuba’s ability to develop without US assistance,
but contributes to increased air pollution and a continued reliance on crude for electricity generation.
The effect of the dramatic surge in foreign direct investment is yet to be determined, but it could lead to
much-needed grid efficiency improvements and the ability to substitute LNG for crude oil as a power
source.
--XT – CUBAN AG RESILIENT
Cuba won’t revert to industrial ag
Van Cleef 2k (Lisa Van Cleef, “The Big Green Experiment: Cuba's Organic Revolution,” San Francisco
Chronicle, “Wednesday, March 15, 2000, pg. http://yeoldeconsciousnessshoppe.com/art9.html)//HA
Cuba's advanced organic farming techniques have led to major cultural shifts
as many city-dwellers have become farmers. But what happens when the
Cuban economy shifts and the embargo is lifted? Now that they are such capable
organic growers, will they revert to chemical farming? Rieux says no .
"Yes, there are people who believe some of the gardeners will revert to the
old practices, but many people will still farm organically. Even when the embargo lifts,
the small farmer will make more money organically because he spends so little. He's not going to start
buying chemicals. He won't have to. He has the knowledge now.
Cuba won’t revert – prior experience with industrial ag makes it a political nonstarter
Zepeda, 3 - Lydia Zepeda is a professor in the Department of Consumer Science and a Fellow at the
Center for World Affairs and Global Economics, University of Wisconsin (Choices: The Magazine of Food,
Farm, and Resource Issues, “Cuban Agriculture: A Green and Red Revolution”
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-4/2003-4-01.htm)
What will the future bring? Quien sabe. Everyone expects political changes when Castro dies, but one
must be mindful that there is an immense state communist system that permeates Cuban society. Many
people benefit from this system, and Cubans are well aware of the example of the Soviet collapse and
ensuing economic and social crisis in Russia. Regardless of what happens on the political level, it
seems likely that Cuba will continue to promote agroecological practices
and to expand urban agriculture simply because they are yielding results.
The bad experiences with large agricultural operations, both before and
after communism, make it unlikely that anyone could credibly promote a
return to large, high-input operations as a matter of national policy.
The positive results that farmers, university researchers, and extension are
getting from the transformation of Cuban agriculture will likely encourage
them to continue to pursue sustainable practices whatever comes next. Cuban
people are eating better and healthier than before, though things are far from perfect. However, the
relevant comparison is to other Latin American countries; Cuba simply does not have the widespread
hunger, destitution, and suffering that are commonplace in countries with much higher GDP per capita.
The extent of future success with sustainable agriculture will of course
depend on what markets Cuban farmers will have access to and what types of
competition they will face from imports. Although great strides have been made, Cuba will likely always
be a food importer, and it will certainly be in Cuba's interest to buy its imported meat, rice, beans, oil,
soy, and dairy products as cheaply as possible. If the United States wants to supply these imports, it will
need to negotiate a means for Cuba to earn the money to buy them. Removing the travel ban and
permitting US tourists would certainly yield more unity among US agricultural interests than allowing
importation of Cuban sugar, citrus, and tobacco. Whatever the future brings, one thing is certain: Cuba
will continue to make some of the finest cigars and music in the world.
It’s not reversible – political commitment outweighs the influx of trade
Barclay, 3 – freelance writer based in Washington, D.C. (Eliza, “Cuba's security in fresh produce” 9/12,
http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1208)
With Cuba's well-documented ability to feed itself, why would the Cuban
government be interested in spending $91.9 million on food imports?
John S. Kavulich II, president of the U.S. Trade and Economic Council based in New York City, said,
"There is a strong political component to the Cubans' decision to purchase food products from us. Of the
products purchased since 2001, nearly all of them are available from other sources at better prices."
Kavulich cited rice as an example. The Cubans could buy rice from Vietnam at a significantly lower price,
but they choose to purchase from purveyors like ADM instead.
Food First's Rosset agrees. "I believe the Cubans are buying from the U.S. as a political
gesture. They hope the food corporations will lobby the U.S. government on
their behalf to lift the embargo."
Aside from the disruption in self-sufficiency, there is also growing concern that if the embargo
is eventually lifted, global agricultural giants will persuade farmers to drop
their organic methods in favor of high pesticide and fertilizer usage.
However, Dr. Nelso Campanioni Concepción of INIFAT responded: "We are not
going back. We will increase production, but we will not degrade the
environment doing it."
Speculating on the possible institutional reactions to a global market that peddles genetically
engineered seeds, pesticides, and fertilizers, Rosset said, "There is a possibility of a negative impact on
the Cuban model. There may be a short term increase in pesticide use and a
stronger interest in biotechnology, but they may not last because they may
not fulfill Cuban agricultural needs."
--XT – EXPERTISE TURN
Some trade is inevitable and will erode Cuban ag – ending full economic isolation is vital to
effective cross-national resistance
Thompson and Stephens, 12 – * Ph.D. Curriculum and Education Director @ Duke University AND
** Marian Cheek Jackson Center (Charles D. and Alexander, “Visions for Sustainable Agriculture in Cuba
and the United States: Changing Minds and Models through Exchange”, Southern States, March 22
2013, http://www.southernspaces.org/2012/visions-sustainable-agriculture-cuba-and-united-stateschanging-minds-and-models-through-exchan) //SP
With Cuba developing closer ties to the U.S. agriculture industry, increasing
its trade with China, and, with Venezuela’s help, poised to explore oil fields
off its northern coast, we cannot assume that the island nation will adopt a
model of ecological sustainability.9 Resistance to the onslaught of
ecologically destructive development that looms on Cuba’s horizon will come
through cooperation and exchange , not isolation.
What we do know about Cuba’s agricultural innovations is that domestic shortages brought on by the end of Soviet subsidies and the U.S. embargo forced the
Cuban government to seek alternative solutions. This entailed ceding some degree of power to its innovative citizen farmers and gardeners who have, in turn,
helped create an alternative to industrial agriculture through the formation of organic garden cooperatives known as "organopónicos," local distribution channels,
information exchanges, and the like.10 Urban dwellers, many of them university trained, some of them scientists, have joined cooperative gardens in the cities.
Working toward sustainability, Cuba’s rural farmers have received new freedoms to produce for more open markets. Such policy changes, along with newly
revamped farms and numerous urban gardens, have contributed to a much-needed increase in the country’s food supply since the early 1990s.11 While overall
food production in Cuba in 2010 was lower than in 2005, the organic movement coupled with local sales and farmers’ pocketing some of the profit, is one area of
progress.12
Opportunities for a Sustainable Future
The first stop on our trip was Vívero Alamar, one of the best known organopónicos in Havana, founded by Miguel Salcines Lopez, who also serves as the elected
president. He graciously spent a morning with us, beginning by talking about Cuba’s history of agriculture. "Cuba’s first farmers were slaves," Miguel said, and
because of this past as well as Cuba’s history of development, people did not want to enter agriculture. Cubans filled the cities, and the countryside soon depended
on sugar exports alone. At its height, over 5 million acres were planted in sugarcane, and 160 different refineries dotted the landscape.13 This system created a
dependency on one export crop and established a precedent for importing everything else. "The whole diet was based on imported food," Miguel said.
When the USSR collapsed and ceased buying sugar at inflated prices—over five times the going international rate—and the U.S. continued its embargo (called a
blockade by Cubans) on agricultural and other inputs, Cuba urgently explored ways to produce its own food. "The blockade was beneficial in one way for Cuba,"
added Miguel, "otherwise the talent would have left."
Because of a lack of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and machinery, the island nation turned to organic fertilization and pest control, all run by trained scientists,
such as Miguel. "If we hadn’t gone organic, we’d have starved!" The goals were to avoid eating imports and to become self-sufficient in food. We met scores of
people, young and old, engaged in harvest. We met a scientist named Marisol, who was conducting a lab experiment involving beneficial insects. We found her bent
over a microscope in a small shed in the middle of the fields, her child playing nearby. We saw acres and acres of picture-perfect organic vegetables.
Miguel characterized the impressive system they have built as a "biological machine" with everything self-contained. One hundred and eighty-one workers are
employed by the garden. We were impressed by the organipónico’s sense of organization, its members’ dedication to having a biologically cyclical operation with no
outside inputs, and most of all by the cooperative’s amazing production of healthy vegetables. Miguel claimed they are producing two hundred tons per acre off the
plots, and we could see that production was at full-bore in December 2010. The diversity and the extent of crop production result from the number of hands that
have carefully infused life into the plots. These gardens stand in sharp contrast to fields worked by machines on commercial farms, and unlike the land on
monocultural, industrial farms, which declines in quality, the soil at the organopónico becomes richer with time and layers of vermiculture compost. Miguel and his
colleagues are feeding over five thousand weekly, and lines of people form outside the gates daily to purchase the results of their work. "There is much to do," he
said. "The market is waiting."
There is a long list of people waiting to join the garden project at Vívero Alamar, both for the nutritional benefits and the income. We learned that while the
minimum monthly salary in Cuba is around 250 Cuban pesos (approximately 25 Cuban pesos to the American dollar), the minimum brought in by members of the
organopónico is 350, with as much as 700 for a number of leaders. While markets function differently in the U.S., similar models should be profitable here.
Agriculture researchers are looking for ways to reverse the losses of family farms in the U.S. South by locating organic, sustainable markets. The Center for
Environmental Farming Systems (CEFS) in Raleigh, North Carolina, is one of the best examples of a U.S. organization using sustainable agriculture to create jobs and
further social justice in economically depressed areas.14 There is a growing market emphasizing "locavorism," with restaurants, cookbooks, and blogs supporting
and promoting local foodways. Considering the parallels in their work, it would seem mutually beneficial for groups such as CEFS and Vívero Alamar to cultivate a
relationship of exchange.
The day after leaving the organopónico we met with Dr. Fernando Funes, internationally recognized leader of the sustainable agriculture movement in Cuba. His
son, also Fernando, who increasingly has stepped into his father’s leadership role, told us, "My father was a farmer, and I thought he was backward." Young
Fernando changed his mind as he witnessed commercial agriculture using tremendous amounts of fertilizers and other imports and began to realize that local
farming knowledge was of critical importance. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, during what came to be called the "Special Period," Cuba was unable to
feed its people. This stark situation prompted frantic searches for innovative approaches and an eventual change to biological-intensive—as opposed to chemicalintensive—means of production. The government opened over three hundred agricultural research stations.15
Where urban agriculture had been prohibited previously because of the danger of chemical exposure, Fernando explained, after the policy change the number of
gardens immediately shot up to over two hundred. Some 375,000 people joined the ranks of rooftop and vacant lot gardeners. "They were producing something to
eat," Fernando said. The government supplied the land and opened channels of distribution. In the first year any new group of gardeners could secure the right to
cultivate approximately thirty-three acres and, with success, this could double the next year, and triple in three years to a hundred acres.
Dr. Funes published Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance: Transforming Food Production in Cuba with food activist Dr. Peter Rosset (formerly with the U.S.
organization Food First), and is widely known as an international ambassador for Cuba’s sustainable agriculture. Funes’ organization, the Asociación Cubana de
Agricultura Orgánica (ACAO), received the Right Livelihood Award in 1999. His affability and intelligence drew us in, and we left believing that new leaders and
groups would continue to learn from his example.16
The following day we spent with Dr. Humberto Ríos Labrada, of the Cuban National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, and the recipient of the Goldman Prize in 2010
for his community-based research with Cuban farmers. We accompanied Humberto to talk with the "guajiros" (the nickname for people from the Cuban
countryside) with whom he works daily. As we drove the four-lane road to Pinar del Rio, Humberto told us his organization works with a network of 55,000 farmers
in seed sharing and farm-based research. Charged initially with increasing squash production in Cuba, Humberto began holding meetings with farmers who showed
up to participate in an effort to find new seed varieties and improve their yields. Humberto recognized the need to turn the traditional extension model upside
down. Instead of the scientists being the "experts", Humberto realized that the farmers themselves cultivated the necessary knowledge and crop diversity. The
The opportunity to learn
from the success of such grassroots organizing campaigns among farmers
is another compelling reason for exchange across the Florida Straights.
participation of farmers expanded exponentially, starting with a few hundred and increasing by the thousands.
At midday we arrived at the farm of Maria Valido, Agustín Pimental, and their son Royber in Pinar del Rio, near Viñales. Royber, completing his degree in agronomy
at the local university, was conducting experiments on the family farm, including one plot with seventy three different varieties of beans. This family and thousands
of others like them began alternative agriculture in 2002 with Humberto Ríos’s encouragement. Suddenly farmers were sharing their knowledge and seed varieties
together in meetings of campesinos. The family was eager to tell us about their operation, how they came to some of their innovations (Royber’s father had built a
methane digester), and how their seeds performed.
"Farmers listen with their eyes," said Agustín. By seeing results on other farms, they could duplicate and improve their own work. On this little piece of land, our
research team found hope and innovation, and some of the friendliest smiles and open, informed attitudes we had experienced in Latin America. We left glowing,
having consumed farm-raised food and taken in a large helping of farm entrepreneurship that included not only experiments with plant breeding and food
preservation, but also solar and methane energy production. We took away a feeling that true exchange had taken place, and that we were the primary
beneficiaries.
If farmers could reach tourists and sell food directly as in the urban casas particulares where we stayed, people would pay handsomely to eat farm-raised food on a
farm in place of the typical tourist fare. Humberto had explained that marketing ideas are as important as technical innovations. Miguel Salcines’s ideas for
distribution are why many are flocking to join. The Vívero Alamar group has reached thousands of consumers because of the cooperative’s marketing, which
includes an attractive farm stand with a cane press where people can buy fresh sugarcane juice as they buy their produce. Necessity is the driving force, but
marketing keeps income rolling in for the members. Agritourism has already developed in parts of the U.S. South. Autumn drivers along the Blue Ridge Parkway can
see apple orchards filled with tourists picking fruit. Likewise, a chance to try one’s hand at a plow powered by a pair of oxen, for example, might intrigue
adventurous tourists in Cuba. Agritourism, of course, is no simple or straightforward solution, as historic experience with tourism and agritourism shows. If farmers
and local communities are not in control, tourism could create greater inequalities and exacerbate food insecurity. Therefore any emphasis on tourism has to take
into account who owns and controls the local food system. The next morning was Christmas day and we visited a small alley market named Agropecuario Beleu in
Havana. We met Osiris Cueto, a buyer/seller who manages a small stall. She taught us how the Cuban agricultural authorities broker the sales of vegetables and
fruits. Each seller registers with a market officer, charges a fixed price, and takes a percentage of the profit for the day, paying some of the return to the
government. From Osiris we learned why growers would surely welcome the chance to sell directly to consumers. A policy change in December 2011 was supposed
to permit just that.17
That afternoon we left on a bus for Trinidad, another UNESCO world heritage site on the south coast. Lacking prior introductions did not seem to matter. The first
day, I met Tomás Pérez Ricardo and his uncle on the street corner, selling produce from their small semi-rural organopónico named "Framboyan." Tomás, like the
farmers we had met in Pinar del Rio, was gracious, proud of his work, and eager to share both produce and ideas. After visiting his house and farm the next day, I
was impressed by how promising this young man believed his garden work to be and how open he was to sharing its message. Riding a horse-drawn cart to town
and living in a modest cinderblock house, Tomás had no designs on getting rich, but he saw the possibilities for raising a family on vegetable sales. This sense of
hope from agriculture has been a rarity in the developing world. For years, hope for economic prosperity has also eluded many small farmers in the U.S. South. With
the growing market for local and sustainably-produced food, the rural U.S. is beginning to benefit from employment associated with sustainable agriculture. And in
Cuba, with only 20% of the market supplied by local production, there is plenty of room for more newcomers like Tomás.
The next day we drove past thousands of acres of fallow sugarcane fields on our way to yet another UNESCO world heritage site, the Valley of the Ingenios
(sugarcane mills) and specifically to the Manaca Iznaga estate. A tower, constructed for overseeing slaves in the fields nearly two centuries earlier, still looms over
the old plantation. In the nearby garden of Organopónico Primero de Mayo, I could see the tower, as the ancestors of former slaves worked at a site of cooperation
and member ownership. I imagined how non-profits working with former sharecropping families in the Mississippi Delta and Appalachia could find this model
relevant.
The garden at Primero de Mayo grows eight kinds of vegetables with seeds supplied by the state. Ten members share the proceeds of the produce sold in the
streets. The vice-president of the cooperative garden, Pedro Rodriguez Pérez, explained that while the government supplied the land and seeds, the more the
members sell, the more they make. The cooperative pays a percentage back to the government, but there is incentive in reaching more customers. The model is not
yet generating enough income to allow farm families to have economic autonomy from state subsidies (the same is true of U.S. farmers). Even so, I appreciated
watching a grandfather and grandson working side-by-side on land over which they had some say. The tradition of acquiring agricultural knowledge via parent or
grandparent remains alive in Cuba in a way that it does not in most parts of the United States. This is largely because of efforts by organizations of small farmers
between the Revolution and the Special Period.18
After spending the next night in Havana, we set out for Viñales. We had seen the edge of the region before, but had not quite reached the valley and round hills that
appear in so many photographs, the actual location designated as the world heritage site. Our most important goal there was to meet farmers and, based on our
previous experiences, we trusted we would find people willing to talk. We met an energetic young farmer named Noél Parrapito our first day there. For two days he
took us through the Viñales Valley where we met ten other farmers, sampled their tobacco, ate their produce and home-raised chicken, and learned about their
animal husbandry—from their close work with oxen to their horseback riding skills and horse carts. Those skills, juxtaposed with solar technology, water
purification, and a generally high literacy rate, spoke of something more than harkening back to yesteryear. Time-after-time when we explained that we were from
the United States, our acquaintances replied with both warmth and surprise: warmth because of an association with so many family members and former neighbors
who now live there; and surprise because no one from the U.S. had ever visited them before. I found myself thinking at those times how lucky we were to be
there—to be the first Americans to go there—knowing how much damage tourism as mentioned on the PBS Nature program had done in other places. I felt sadness
as well, knowing how much the indigenous knowledge that these farmers possess was all but inaccessible to thousands of young people in the United States. This
feeling was particularly acute because the farmers we met struck me as keenly interested in exchanging knowledge and ideas.
With Noél, with whom we shared several meals and lots of conversation while on horseback, we talked about "agritourism." How many people would pay to live on
his farm, learn to work with oxen, and cultivate rice, corn, and the huge variety of animals and vegetables he produces? He perked up at the idea and wanted me to
repeat the word the next day. He was a patient teacher, showing us every insect, plant, cave, and soil type we passed in the Valley.
Could farmers begin to rent their homes to visitors, a program already allowed by the government in urban areas? Could visitors work on the cooperative garden
projects with innovators like Miguel Salcines and learn biological farming techniques? Could agritourism fit with the Viñales Valley model? And if it works in Cuba,
what are the opportunities for us in the U.S. South to learn through exchange? Too often in the United States, the people who are trying to combine sustainable
agriculture and tourism were not raised in these traditions. There are obvious differences between the aesthetics of their fields and those of experienced farmers
with years of inherited wisdom. The Cuban farmers we met take great pride in the appearance of their plots, and for tourists appearance is a significant selling
point. In both countries, the larger the profits generated by sustainable farms, the stronger the case for more alternatives to industrial agriculture.
On the last day of our research trip, shortly after New Year’s Day, we took the public bus to Humberto’s farm and heard his band play songs about seed sharing and
agriculture. He and his band use their music, as shown on the Goldman Prize website, for outreach and education.19
Conclusion: A Call for Exchange
Individuals and small groups can begin to heal historic wounds between two countries—through common experiences, work, and dialogue. I came back to the U.S.
enriched beyond measure, not by internalizing the policies of agriculture over the last century or even what might make an organopónico movement run better, but
by human exchanges and in-person meetings.
We should invent ways to enable visitors who are prepared to listen and learn to go to Cuba, as well as ways to bring farmers and technicians from Cuba to work in
The dialogue of resistance to imperialism in Cuba can help inform
the politics of the U.S. sustainable agriculture movement. And with political
and economic changes imminent in Cuba, there are lessons to be learned
from U.S. organizations confronting corporate agriculture. It would be
tragic if loosened commercial restrictions in Cuba resulted in planting an
agribusiness model there that we are desperately trying to get away from in our own country.
the U.S. South.
As Fernando Funes put it, the inclusion of small farmers through redistribution of resources "makes
them critical actors in the new reconfigured economy."20 Cuban people, particularly rural people, are
the true wealth of the island. Most are literate, savvy about change, and have developed opinions about
workable solutions. The potential for exchange between Cuba and the U.S. South
offers a collective possibility for agricultural sustainability, an exchange
that must overcome boundaries between nations.
--XT – SUGAR TURN
Greater foreign investment is vital to Cuban sugar
King 12- Visiting Assistant Professor at Brown University’s Center for Environmental Studies
(M. Dawn, “Cuban Sustainability: The Effects of Economic Isolation on Agriculture and Energy” per
Presentation for the Western Political Science Association Portland, OR, March 21-24, 2012,
http://wpsa.research.pdx.edu/meet/2012/kingmdawn.pdf)//HA
Cuba needed an alternative agricultural model when foreign oil imports were cut off significantly at the
end of the 1980s, and the partial opening of the Cuban economy, focused on creating more autonomous
agricultural cooperatives, in the 1990s helped diversity food crops and set Cuba along a path of
increased food security. The Cuban model was initiated out of necessity, not because of any sort of
Cuban environmental consciousness, yet better environmental conditions went hand in hand with the
new development strategy. Cuba learned the limits of their agricultural model under
their socialist economic system and it is in need of further transformation in both the
agriculture and energy sectors. A further opening of the economy to joint ventures
could help with updating the power grid and providing more sources of
renewable energy – potentially expanding Cuba’s potential for a more
sustainable means of energy security. Further, Cuba needs foreign investment
to update agriculture facilities and take maximum advantage of
cogeneration and biofuel potential with sugarcane waste. The strong state
control of farming practices, used to successfully jumpstart the alternative
model, has hit its limit . The Cuban government must begin loosening its grips on the domestic
economy to allow for more competition in the farming sector.
The embargo hurts Cuba’s sustainable agriculture model and prevent them from shifting to
renewable energy
King 12- Visiting Assistant Professor at Brown University’s Center for Environmental Studies
(M. Dawn, “Cuban Sustainability: The Effects of Economic Isolation on Agriculture and Energy” per
Presentation for the Western Political Science Association Portland, OR, March 21-24, 2012,
http://wpsa.research.pdx.edu/meet/2012/kingmdawn.pdf)//HA
ABSTRACT: Cuba is well-known for its alternative model of agriculture that
focused on diversifying crops, increasing organic production, and localizing
the food economy. While Cuba adopted this agricultural model out of necessity due
to the massive decline of petroleum imports, their localized, organic food system was
heralded world-wide as a model of sustainability. However, a less studied
aspect of Cuban sustainability is how limited petroleum imports affected
Cuban energy use and energy policy, and how the recent opening of the energy
economy affects their organic agriculture model. Despite investments in solar, wind,
and hydroelectric projects, Cuba’s main source of renewable energy, sugar bagasse,
declined significantly due to the economic collapse of the 1990s and subsequent
crumbling of the sugar industry’s infrastructure. Further, Cuba relies heavily on crude and
liquid fuels for electricity generation, hardly a sustainable model. This paper
argues that Cuba’s economic isolation during the early 1990s led to an
environmentally friendly agricultural model, yet this same isolation could
cripple the realization of a sustainable energy model and reduce their agricultural sustainability . The
recent economic opening of the country to foreign investment could boost Cuba’s potential for
increasing renewable energies, but it is also leading to increased chemical fertilizer and fossil fuel use –
weakening Cuba’s sustainability.
--XT - VENEZUELA
Fertilizers inevitable- Venezuela gives it to Cuba
Patel 13 - Research Fellow @ Institute for Food and Development Policy [Raj Patel|” What Cuba Can
Teach Us About Food and Climate Change,” Slate, Tuesday, June 18, 2013, at 12:29 AM, pg.
http://tinyurl.com/77l7b32
For many, especially government officials, choosing agro-ecology wasn’t a redblooded Communist decision. It was a practical one. They are quite ready for
an industrial-agricultural relapse if the occasion arises. Recently, they have had an
unlikely enabler: Hugo Chávez . In exchange for the 31,000 Cuban doctors who are
treating Venezuelans, Cuba receives 100,000 barrels of oil a day, plus a great
deal of chemical fertilizer. As a result, the parts of the country untouched by agro-ecology
are starting to spray and sow like it’s the 1980s again .
CUBAN AG LOW NOW
Cuban agriculture is stagnating now
Frank, 12 – Havana-based Reuters correspondent and a former writer for the People's Daily World, a
Communist Party USA publication (Marc, “Cuba growing less food than 5 ys ago despite agriculture
reforms”, Reuters, 4/31/2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/cuba-foodidUSL2E8JVAUU20120831) //SP
HAVANA, Aug 31 (Reuters) - Cuba is producing less food than it did five years ago
despite efforts to increase agriculture production, the government reported
on Friday.
Some export crops and farm output aimed at substituting food imports registered minor gains, but
overall output last year remained below 2007 levels, according to a report issued by the National
Statistics Office ().
The government has also reported that food prices rose 20 percent in 2011.
Cuban President Raul Castro has made increasing food production a
priority since he took over as president from his ailing brother, Fidel, in 2008.
The communist country imports up to 70 percent of its food and is investing hundreds of millions of
dollars to boost production of rice, beans, coffee and milk and reduce imports.
Domestic production of two Cuban food staples has increased, the government said. Rice production
reached 566,400 tonnes compared with 439,600 tonnes in 2007, and farmers produced 133,000 tonnes
of beans with 97,200 tonnes in 2007.
To stimulate production, Castro has decentralized decision-making, opened up
more space for farmers to sell directly to consumers and raised prices the
state pays for produce. He has stopped short of allowing market forces to
take hold and drive production.
Marino Murillo, who is leading efforts to steer Cuba's state-dominated economy in a more marketfriendly direction, announced in July that a government effort to reduce state
bureaucracy in the agriculture sector had recently been completed.
Speaking to the National Assembly, he outlined plans for separating quasi-cooperatives from the state
and allowing them to operate like private cooperatives. These operations, formed by state-run
companies in the mid-1990s on 30 percent of Cuba's arable land, have performed poorly.
Murillo also said at that time that a land-lease program begun in 2008 involving
some 170,000 farmers would be expanded to allow up to five times more
land per individual.
Private farmers produce the bulk of the food in Cuba on a fraction of the land. This has led farmers and
agricultural experts inside and outside the country to call on the state to pull back further and let market
forces drive the sector.
Cuban agriculture low now
Benitez, 5/15 – Café Fuerte, Havana Times (Daniel, “Cuba’s Agriculture Continues to Slump”, Havana
Times, 5/15/2013, http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=93145) //SP
HAVANA TIMES — Despite efforts to bolster agricultural and livestock production and reduce food
product imports, the most recent government statistics reveal that Cuba’s
economy is currently in a tight corner.
According to a report published by Cuba’s National Statistics and Information Bureau (ONE),
production statistics for crops not included in the sugar cane sector
plummeted by 7.8 percent during the first quarter of 2013.
The figures for viand production – 368.6 thousand tons, 20.8 percent less than the previous
year – are truly catastrophic. Compared to the previous year, the production
of tubers (290.3 thousand tons) experienced a 10 percent drop.
The country’s potato harvest was the most severly affected with a 36 percent drop reported. Decreased
production was also reported for bananas (44%), corn (22 %), citrus fruits (34%), other fruits (14%) and
beans (7%).
There was a rise in the production of tomatoes (22%), green vegetables (9%)
and rice (2.5 %)
More Meat, Less Milk
The livestock industry experienced a 16.8 percent increase in production
between the months of January and March according to ONE, which reported greater yields for beef (30
thousand tons) and pork (41.3 thousand tons). A slight drop in the production of rabbit meat and poultry
was reported.
The production of milk and eggs, however, two of the pillars of the daily diets of Cubans,
also experienced a significant drop.
At 84.8 million liters, milk production dropped by nearly one million liters compared
to last year. The volume made available to the population directly was a mere
20.3 million liters, 19 percent less than the volume reported in 2012.
Milk shortages have again served to evoke the promises made by President Raul Castro in 2007, when
he affirmed that the country had to guarantee that all Cubans had at least one glass of milk on their
tables.
In recent declarations, Felix Gonzalez, president of Cuba’s National Association of Small Farmers (ANAP),
urged dairy farmers to catch up to the production goal established for the first third of the year and to
eliminate the nearly three-million-liter milk deficit.
Gonzalez made these declarations in Villa Clara, a province with a 300million-liter production plan, and called on farmers to make the most of the
spring season, so as to be able to reach the established goal.
At 495.6 million units, egg production experienced a 2.4 percent drop when
compared to figures reported for the poultry sector last year.
No Small Potatoes
The issue of potato production is one of the Ministry of Agriculture’s more serious headaches. Unable to
maintain a steady offer of this product at official sales points, the country is witnessing high black
market prices for the tuber.
It is estimated that current potato production efforts are 8,000 tons behind the
established goal, as a result of organizational and technical deficiencies,
among other factors. According to an official report, unfavorable weather
conditions and generally poor yields by two imported varieties of potato,
were chiefly responsible for this drop in production.
This critical situation has forced agricultural authorities to apply such measures as selling the product
immediately, without previous storage, in order to avoid greater shortages during the peak stage of the
harvest.
In view of this complex situation, the Cuban press has criticized the allotment of
large volumes of the product to private businesses and intermediaries, a
practice which has long affected Cuban society and results in the disappearance of highly-demanded
products from State markets and their monopolization by privately-run kiosks.
In the hands of intermediaries, a pound of potatoes can cost as much as 25 pesos, or 1 Cuban
Convertible Peso (CUC). The average monthly salary in Cuba is about 18 CUC.
New Market Policies
The situation is made even more complex by the emergence of more and more privately-run restaurants
and cafeterias which offer potato-based menu items.
The Department for Viands of Cuba’s Ministry of Agriculture recently
reported that 5,575 hectares of land, in the provinces from Artemisa to
Ciego de Avila, have been used as potato plantations so far this year. This year,
fewer volumes of potatoes have been planted in an effort to reduce losses in the sector (in 2011, potato
production fell 11 thousand tons short of the production goal).
The province of Ciego de Avila, which is 22,198 tons behind the production schedule, is one of the
largest potato producers in the country. The province also ships the product to the provinces of
Camaguey, Granma, Holguin, Santiago de Cuba and Guantanamo.
This past Monday, the Cuban government announced it would implement a new
policy for the sale of agricultural and livestock products in the provinces of
La Habana, Artemisa and Mayabeque, a policy that could later be applied to
the rest of the country. The initiative seeks to regulate, in centralized fashion, the production
prices of such products as rice, beans, potatoes, malanga, sweet potatoes, onions, garlic and tomatoes.
The government also announced that, as of now, there will be two types of
agricultural and livestock markets: those administered by the State, which
will be entitled to operate under the same conditions as non-State
establishments, and those operated by agricultural and livestock cooperatives.
AT: “CUBA MUST REFORM”
Cuba is currently implementing reforms to allow foreign investment in ag cooperatives
Shkolnick, 12 - J.D. Candidate, Drake University Law School (Jacob, “SIN EMBARGO: n1 THE CUBAN
AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE UNITED STATES” 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 683,
Fall, lexis)
José Garea Alonso, an official with the Cuban Ministry of Agriculture,
indicated that recent legislation such as Law 259 is the start of what may
eventually lead to more direct commercial ties between Cuban
organizations and for [*703] eign buyers or investors. n155 At the moment, Cuba's
agricultural cooperatives are relatively small and continue to rely on the state for the
bulk of their marketing opportunities. n156 In the future, these cooperatives may be
allowed to join together to form larger groups of linked agricultural
cooperatives working together to manage their own affairs, and may include the ability to directly
negotiate with foreign buyers rather than requiring an intervening hand from Alimport or another
appropriate ministry. n157
Foreign investment in Cuban businesses has only been possible in a limited form since the early 1980s,
when the Cuban government introduced legislation allowing for foreign entities to create a joint venture
with the Cuban government for investment purposes. n158 Ultimately, the goal of this legislation was to
provide an easier means for Cuba to acquire additional foreign currency to inject into its economy. n159
Even with the new law, regulations prohibited any foreign participant in a joint enterprise from
controlling more than 49%, though such a restriction was not in place for a partnership. n160
Reforms have been made in the agriculture sector in Cuba.
Havana times 13
(“Cuba to Eliminate Subsidies on Farm Inputs and Equipment” Havana Times, June 3, 2013,
http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=94029)//HA
HAVANA TIMES – Inputs and equipment which are currently delivered to Cuban
farmers at subsidized prices will begin to be sold “at market prices without subsidies”,
said Vice President Marino Murillo Jorge before the Council of Ministers on Friday.
According to a Granma newspaper report, Murillo said that “measures will be taken in
order to avoid, where possible, the price increase affecting the general
population.”
As part of the restructuring of the agricultural sector, the government will
also allow producers to market their products and services according to
market demand, once they meet after they fulfill their contracts for sales to the State.
The new form of marketing will begin as a pilot project in 2014 on the Isle of
Youth, and may spread to the rest of the country.
Cuba is engaged in reforms of agriculture, part of a broader trend of economic reform.
BBC 11
(“Cuba to allow farmers to sell directly to hotels” BBC News, 21 November 2011,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15829737)//HA
Farmers in Cuba will be able to sell their goods directly to tourist hotels and
restaurants from 1 December 2011, the official Communist Party newspaper Granma has
announced.
Under the new rules, Cubans will not have to go through government
middlemen to sell agricultural produce.
For the first time in decades, farmers will also be allowed to take their products to
market themselves.
The farm reform follows recent moves liberalising Cuban house and car
sales.
The government said the new rules were meant to cut down on
transportation costs and speed up food delivery to the tourism industry.
'Better supply'
According to Granma, the reform will allow farmers to "develop mechanisms to
supply tourist entities and take better advantage of the potential of all
forms of local means of production".
Tourism is a key source of revenue for Cuba, but visitors often complain about the poor
quality of food.
The government is hoping the reform will help provide fresher and more
varied products, boosting Cuba's attractiveness.
Under the current rules, a state-run body has a monopoly on the sale and distribution of agricultural
products.
Prices and production volume are set at the start of each harvest.
Critics say the state-run system has led to high volumes of food rotting before it could be distributed.
The reform is part of a larger overhaul of Cuba's Soviet-style economy , which has already led to
changes allowing Cubans to set up their own small businesses and buy and
sell cars and homes.
Economic reforms are under way in Cuba, specifically in the agricultural industry through
opening of wholesale markets. In addition the government will stop setting prices.
Frank 6/20- reporter for Reuters
(Marc, “Cuba steps back from its wholesale produce monopoly” Reuters, Jun 20, 2013,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/20/cuba-reform-agriculture-idUSL2N0EW1K420130620)//HA
(Reuters) - A wholesale produce market run by a private cooperative will open
on July 1 in Havana, the first such market since Cuba monopolized wholesale
operations in the 1960s, state media said on Thursday.
"The opening of this wholesale market is part of a new system of produce sales ...
in Havana, and (neighboring) Artemisa and Mayabeque (provinces)," the government's mid-
day newscast said, adding three others would follow in the capital.
The state will own the premises, but the market will be leased to a cooperative that
will operate it "on the basis of supply and demand," the report said.
The private cooperative will be the first to operate in Cuba outside of
farming and is one of some 200 privately run wholesale markets of all types set
to open in the coming months.
They will range from food services and construction to transportation and
shrimp breeding.
President Raul Castro, who replaced his ailing brother Fidel in 2008, began agricultural reforms a year
later as part of a broad effort to modernize the Soviet-style economy.
With the country importing around 60 percent of its food and private farms outperforming state farms
on a fraction of the land, authorities are gradually deregulating the sector and leasing fallow land to
would-be farmers.
At the same time, the state is licensing private truckers and vendors as part of an
opening to small businesses. Some 400,000 people now work in what is called the "nonstate" sector.
The government has said it will hold on to medium-sized establishments or
lease them to privately run cooperatives free of state control and setting of
prices, which it views as preferable to businesses owned by individuals.
Cuban farmers and consumers have long complained that the state's
monopoly on food sales is a disincentive to production, inefficient and leads
to waste and poor quality produce.
"Something has to be done, at least they are trying to solve the problem," Camaguey
province farmer Anibal Martinez said in a telephone interview.
"No doubt it's not perfect, but hopefully they will fix whatever difficulties arise," he
said. (Reporting by Marc Frank; Editing by Xavier Briand)
CUBAN MODEL SOLVES
The Cuban model can completely replace industrial ag globally
Gersper, 9 - associate Professor of Soil Science at the University of California, Berkeley (Paul, “The Roots
of Cuba's Agricultural Renascence,” Latin American Issues and Challenges
http://www.ecocubanetwork.net/wp-content/uploads/Roots-of-Cubas-Agicultural-Renascence-Part2.pdf)
While Cuba has long been, and still is, in many ways, a special case, there are important lessons to be
learned for the region from its current experiences. Throughout the Caribbean and Latin America the
dominant industrial model of agriculture is in a state of socio- economic
and environmental crisis. The Green Revolution seems to have run its
course. as yield increases have leveled off, and in many cases are dropping
due to insect, disease and weed resistance to pesticides; soil compaction,
erosion and salinization; and water shortages. Prevailing economic prescriptions have
failed to reverse the trend toward increased rural improverishment and marginalization of small-scale
farmers, or to absorb the excess labor migrating from the countryside to overpopulated cities: which
exacerbates impoverishment of the countryside and decay of the cities. Relatedly, policies have failed to
address the ever- expanding environmental crisis by not promoting badly needed de-urbanization and
widespread adoption of green activities and sustainable farming practices.
The evidence is overwhelming that industrial agriculture, which prevails
throughout most of the world, is rapidly, and unnecessarily, expending, damaging, or poisoning
our natural resources. It is justified by its promoters and practitioners as the price that must be
paid to meet the food needs of an expanding world population, and excused by society as a whole as the
price of progress; even though these attitudes cannot be logically nor morally supported. This same
scenario was being played out in Cuba prior to the advent of the Special Period; and if it had not been
for this economic crisis, it is likely that it would still be playing.
Cuba is showing that it is possible to meet food production goals promote
sustainable agriculture, and provide viable economic alternatives for rural communities. What
is required is a simple set of alternative macroeconomic and sectoral policies. Cuba has shown us
that with proper encouragement, support and incentives from government policies,
resource limited, small-scale farmers are very capable of achieving high levels of
productivity: higher, in fact, than those of large-scale producers. Additionally,
Cuba is demonstrating that if agrichemical inputs are kept expensive, or are scarce, rather than
subsidized, farmers, regardless of previous practices and experiences, also are quite capable of achieving
high productivity with alternative, sustainable practices. Thus, following the Cuban example holds great
promise that other Caribbean and Latin American nations also can achieve food security, environmental
recovery in rural areas, and revitalization of rural community economies by: protecting food production
and loosening price controls; removing direct and indirect subsidies for Green Revolution technology;
reforming land tenure; and redirecting research and extension of alternative practices, using
participatory and farmer-to-farmer methods.
The emergent model which defines the radical reformation of her agriculture clearly shows that Cuba
is on track toward today's most progressive and sustainable agriculture,
and it should be vigorously promoted as a model for the entire world to follow. Those
who believe that land stewardship is a requirement for sustainable agriculture realize that eventually
agricultural practices worldwide must either fail or follow the model used by Cuba, the Amish and other
sagacious organic agricultural practitioners. Those who believe that following the industrial model of
agriculture not only is unsustainable, but also grossly irresponsible with regard to obligations to future
generations, realize that the sustainable model being refined in Cuba offers hope that every country can
meet its needs and also leave its natural resources in a condition that will ensure that future generations
also will have a fair opportunity to meet their needs in a sustainable manner.
Cuba’s model is sustainable and can be exported
Price, 8 – Associated Press (Niko, USA Today, “Cuba's urban farming program a stunning success” 6/8,
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-06-08-1039175655_x.htm?csp=34)
Cuba's urban farming program has been a stunning, and surprising, success. The
farms, many of them on tiny plots like Bouza's, now supply much of Cuba's vegetables.
They also provide 350,000 jobs nationwide with relatively high pay and have transformed eating habits
in a nation accustomed to a less-than-ideal diet of rice and beans and canned goods from Eastern
Europe.
From 1989-93, Cubans went from eating an average of 3,004 calories a day to only 2,323, according to
the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, as shelves emptied of the Soviet goods that made up twothirds of Cuba's food. Today, they eat 3,547 calories a day -- more than what the U.S. government
recommends for American citizens.
"It's a really interesting model looking at what's possible in a nation that's 80 percent urban," said
Catherine Murphy, a California sociologist who spent a decade studying farms in Havana. "It shows that
cities can produce huge amounts of their own food, and you get all kinds of
social and ecological benefits."
Of course, urban farms might not be such a success in a healthy, competitive economy.
As it is, productivity is low at Cuba's large, state-run farms where workers lack incentives. Governmentsupplied rations -- mostly imported from the U.S. -- provide such staples as rice, beans and cooking oil,
but not fresh produce. Importers bring in only what central planners want, so the market doesn't correct
for gaps. And since most land is owned by the state, developers are not competing for the vacant lots
that can become plots for vegetables.
Still, experts say the basic idea behind urban farming has a lot of promise.
"It's land that otherwise would be sitting idle. It requires little or no
transportation to get (produce) to market," said Bill Messina, an agricultural economist
at the University of Florida in Gainesville. "It's good anyway you look at it."
And with fuel prices and food shortages causing unrest and hunger across
the world, many say the Cuban model should spread.
"There are certain issues where we think Cuba has a lot to teach the world.
Urban agriculture is one of them," said Beat Schmid, coordinator of Cuba programs for the
charity Oxfam International.
URBAN AG SOLVES
Urban agriculture is sustainable and minimizes the impact to industrial ag
Peters, 10 – LL.M. expected 2011, University of Arkansas School of Law, Graduate Program in
Agricultural and Food Law; J.D. 2010, University of Oregon School of Law (Kathryn, “Creating a
Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution” J. ENVTL. LAW AND LITIGATION [Vol. 25, 203,
http://law.uoregon.edu/org/jell/docs/251/peters.pdf)
Transitioning from an industrial agricultural system to a sustainable urban
agricultural system would minimize the impacts of food production on the
planet. Urban agriculture reduces the consumption of undeveloped land for
farming. Food would be produced in areas that are already developed and
populated, thereby conserving open space for natural habitat.
Due to the proximity of urban gardens to dwellings and other buildings,
urban agriculture must be performed without the use of large machinery
and without the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers.108 While lack of such
inputs could be perceived as a challenge, urban gardening methods may result in increased crop yields
on smaller plots of land than conventional farming practices achieve.109 Rather than
maximizing crop yields through extensive use of chemicals, sustainable
agriculture relies on crop rotation, composting, biofertilizers, and other
organic farming techniques to improve soil fertility.110 Organic farming methods
also protect water resources because organic farms do not use chemical inputs so there is no
contamination of groundwater and streams.111 Furthermore, organic fertilizers reduce the amount of
waste deposited in landfills because they are made from composted and recycled food waste, leaves,
and lawn clippings.112
Urban gardening reduces the effects of climate change by decreasing
greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike industrial farms, urban gardens are cultivated
and harvested with minimal mechanization and do not use oil-based
fertilizers.113 Moreover, food that is grown and sold locally eliminates the need for wasteful plastic
packaging and fossil-fueled transport to market.114 Additionally, having fresh food available in every
neighborhood would reduce carbon-emitting automobile trips to the grocery store.115
Urban agriculture solves – maximizes land use
Peters, 10 – LL.M. expected 2011, University of Arkansas School of Law, Graduate Program in
Agricultural and Food Law; J.D. 2010, University of Oregon School of Law (Kathryn, “Creating a
Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution” J. ENVTL. LAW AND LITIGATION [Vol. 25, 203,
http://law.uoregon.edu/org/jell/docs/251/peters.pdf)
Urban agriculture is a system that ensures food security by providing access
to land and resources to support urban farming efforts.68 The United Nations
Development Programme defines urban agriculture as follows:
[A]n industry that produces, processes, and markets food and fuel, largely in response to the daily
demand of consumers within a town, city, or metropolis, on land and water dispersed throughout the
urban and peri-urban area, applying intensive production methods, using and reusing natural resources
and urban wastes, to yield a diversity of crops and livestock.69
In the United States, urban agriculture is perhaps better known as community gardening.70 Community
gardens are areas where residents grow food on publicly held or privately held land that they do not
own.71 Most often, community gardens are located within neighborhoods, on public housing premises,
or on school grounds.72
In the face of an imminent food shortage, especially in light of the economic
and energy crises discussed above, it is imperative that urban residents expand
urban food production. Neglected and abandoned vacant lots in blighted
urban areas comprise a vast amount of land that could be converted into
urban gardens.73 In addition to vacant lots, other urban areas including
schoolyards, hospital grounds, parks and other open spaces, utility
easements, alleys, rooftops,74 building walls,75 and even windowsills all
provide opportunities for urban agriculture.76
INDUSTRIAL AG COLLAPSE INEVITABLE
Industrial ag is unsustainable- collapse inevitable
Wright, 9 - Deputy Director of Coventry University's Centre for Agroecology and Food Security (Julia,
Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in an Era of Oil Scarcity, p. 15-16)
Although successful in enabling the availability of a narrow range of foods to a wide range of people,
industrialized and global farming and food systems have a long way to go to be
acceptably efficient and effective. They degrade the very natural resource base upon
which agriculture (and human life) depends – from soil and water quality
to plant DNA structure – and inadequately provide in terms of both
quantity and quality.
Degradation of the natural resource base
There is little contestation over the degradation of the natural resource base. Industrial
practices result in vast tracts of degraded land, yield declines, loss of plant
and animal species diversity, increase in susceptibility to disease, and other
serious side-effects over the medium to long term, and have led to a loss of livelihoods (Tansey and
Worsley, 1995; FAO, 1997; Conway, 1998; Pingali and Rosegrant, 1998; Oldeman, 1999; Sustain, 2003;
Hole et al, 2005). This is particularly so for marginal lands, where the poor soils
cannot sustain mono- cultures of annual crops, and which are more vulnerable to
flood and drought (Hazell and Garrett, 2001; McNeely and Sherr, 2001). Environmental degrada- tion is
also expensive: even a decade ago, agricultural losses due to land degradation were about $550 million
annually (Tansey and Worsley, 1995), and the UN estimates that global income loss due to
desertification is $42 billion. Ecologically based, organic farming practices show
themselves to be more successful at supporting a broad and adapted
diversity of crop species and vari- eties, building soil fertility and plant
resistance to disease and infection, and maintaining clean water courses
(Greene and Kremen, 2003; SAN, 2003; Marriot and Wander, 2006). Strengthening the natural
resource base also enables farms to better withstand external shocks and
stresses, including drought and flood (Holt-Giménez, 2002; Lotter et al, 2003; Ching, 2004).
Agriculture accounts for 70 per cent of freshwater use globally, and the UN
predicts that, by 2025, 38 per cent of the population will have insufficient water
supply (compared with 8 per cent in 2008) (Lang, 2008). Organic practices increase water
retention capacity and efficiency by improving soil structure and increasing
soil life, by cultivating climatically adapted varieties, and by growing
polycultures of deeprooting and ground-covering crops. Evidence also indicates
that organic farming approaches produce lower greenhouse-gas emissions. The reasons for this are
threefold: they avoid ammonium nitrate fertilizer (the production of which was responsible for 10 per
cent of Europe’s industrial gas emissions in 2003), they encourage carbon seques- tration through
cultivation of deeprooting plants, and livestock’s methane emissions are lower if they are feeding on
legume pasture (Hamer and Anslow, 2008).
The collapse of industrial ag is inevitable due to peak oil – a shift to organics is the only way
to make it sustainable
Wright, 9 - Deputy Director of Coventry University's Centre for Agroecology and Food Security (Julia,
Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in an Era of Oil Scarcity, p. 1-2)
Over the next few decades, nations will be experiencing fluctuations and
increasing scarcity of fossil fuel supplies, and this will affect food prices.
Alternative farming and food systems are required. Industrialized countries in particular
have been over-consuming fossil fuels by two-thirds, and their agricultural
sectors have contributed this with their heavy dependence on cheap fossil
energy for mechanization and as a basis for agrochemical inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers. The
corresponding industrial food systems in which these farming systems are embedded are similarly
dependent on cheap fossil fuels for the ever-increasing processing and movement of foodstuffs. The low
fuel prices, combined with the industry’s avoidance of paying clean-up costs of environmental pollution,
have enabled the maintenance of low food prices (Vandermeer et al, 1993; Odum, 1994; Tansey and
Worsley, 1995; Desai and Riddlestone, 2002; Harrison, 2004). Alternative, organic
agriculture shows to perform better on a per hectare scale with respect to
both direct energy consumption (fuel and oil) and indirect consumption
(synthetic fertilizers and pesticides) (Scialabba and Hattam, 2002; Ziesemer, 2008). Many
of the products of organic farming are processed and marketed through the industrial food system, but
their prices are higher owing to their factoring-in of their impacts on the environment (Pretty et al,
2000). Although research has long been under way into energy alternatives, the agriculture and food
sectors make little advance in developing alternative systems as long as fuel prices remain low. A far cry
from these petroleum-dependent populations are the 90 per cent of the world’s farmers who manage
75 per cent of global agricultural lands and who have little recourse to fossil fuels and inputs (Conway,
1997). For many of these farmers, their low-input and organic status is by default rather than choice. Yet
others have opted out of the opportunity to embrace industrialized, Green Revolution agriculture when
offered to them.1 Should these farmers, and the food systems of their countries, be encouraged to take
the industrialized route and to also depend on fossil fuels, or might they leap-frog into develop- ing
more efficient and effective alternative food systems?
Yet more localized, petroleum-free farming approaches are perceived by many as unable to deliver the
yields required to feed growing populations, especially those of agrarian-based countries. An estimated
200 million people are classified as undernourished in Africa alone, and with forecasts predicting a
shortfall in meeting the Millennium Development Goal of halving global food insecurity by 2015,
pressure remains on the agricultural sector to increase yields (FAO, 1998; IAC, 2003; Benson, 2004).
Evidence is mounting that alternative farming approaches can outperform
industrialized farming in many circum- stances (e.g. Pretty, 1998; Parrott and Marsden, 2002;
Scialabba and Hattam, 2002; IFAD, 2003). However, this evidence is piecemeal and small-scale. No single
country has made a policy commitment to, and effected, a nationwide sustainable, organic production
approach. Thus there is no example of what a post-petroleum food system might look like, nor how to
put this into place in terms of research, extension and policy support (Röling and Jiggins, 1998).
INDUSTRIAL AG BAD – TERRORISM / WAR
Industrial ag dependence encourages bioterrorism, attacks on oil supply, and resource wars
Peters, 10 – LL.M. expected 2011, University of Arkansas School of Law, Graduate Program in
Agricultural and Food Law; J.D. 2010, University of Oregon School of Law (Kathryn, “Creating a
Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution” J. ENVTL. LAW AND LITIGATION [Vol. 25, 203,
http://law.uoregon.edu/org/jell/docs/251/peters.pdf)
In order to be capable of sustaining itself, the United States must eliminate dependence on foreign oil
and food imports. Dependence on foreign oil and food imports makes the United
States vulnerable to an attack on the existing import-reliant system.152 Further,
in order to protect U.S. interests in foreign oil, the United States funds wars and military troops overseas
while many U.S. residents struggle to survive. These funds could be employed to bolster the U.S.
economy and provide additional education, healthcare, housing, and food to U.S. residents, all of which
would promote social equity. As the vast majority of Americans reside in urban areas, adequate energy
supply and transportation infrastructure are vital to our current food supply system.153 A
sustainable society capable of providing basic necessities within each
community would sharply reduce the impact of an attack on the existing
infrastructure or an energy supply shortage.154
1. National Security and Industrial Agriculture
An industrial agricultural system is inherently dependent on fuel and energy for food production,
transportation, and storage. Distribution of food in such a system is not only dependent on oil, but also
transportation infrastructure. An attack on the oil supply or the transportation infrastructure would
have an immediate and drastic impact on the food supply. Industrial monocultural farming in the United
States, focused on large-scale production of only the most profitable crops, threatens national security
by creating dependency on foreign imports to supplement the domestic food supply.155 Yet
another threat to food security stems from the risk of bioterrorism ;156
centralized food production sites and complex food distribution systems
increase the opportunity for bioterrorist attacks on the food supply.157
Eventual food scarcity resulting from declining crop yields through
industrial agricultural methods may lead to resource wars, further
jeopardizing national security.
2. National Security and Urban Development Trends
Urban development, like industrial agriculture, is reliant upon oil and energy to function. Declining oil
and energy supplies will lead to escalating financial costs for commuting. In the face of an oil shortage,
current development trends may cease to be viable as commuting via oil-dependent automobile
transportation will become prohibitively expensive or, if oil is no longer available, even impossible.
Similarly, the cost of transporting goods such as food will become increasingly expensive.
Current consumption of land and other resources to support suburban growth patterns also creates
global inequalities. To maintain suburban developments, the United States must consume more of the
planet’s resources, including land and materials for construction and oil for transportation. Suburban
development also contaminates clean air and water. If this resource consumption is not managed
properly, resource wars between socioeconomic classes within our own society as well as between the
United States and other countries will likely ensue.158
3. National Security and Urban Agriculture
Urban gardens promote both national security and food security. A local
sustainable agricultural system is not dependent upon foreign oil to
produce chemical fertilizers, run farm equipment, or transport food to
market. Under this type of a system, threats to the food supply, in the form of oil shortages
or oil price increases, would be diminished. Demand for food imports also decreases as local
communities provide themselves with a constant supply of fresh food. Establishing local food
production and distribution networks would reduce food scarcity
vulnerabilities in the event of an attack on U.S. transportation infrastructures.
As the world population continues to grow, food scarcity will become a reality. While the United States
currently relies on food imports to supplement domestic production, worldwide food scarcity will
undoubtedly impact food supplies available for importation. Urban agriculture fosters
national security by reducing the risk of bioterrorism and other attacks on
the food supply.159 Creating a sustainable food supply system now will
strengthen our national security and ensure that an adequate supply of
fresh and healthy food is available to all U.S. residents.
ENVIRONMENTAL COLLAPSE IMPACT
Environmental collapse risks extinction
Ehrlich & Ehrlich 13 – Professor of Biology & Senior Research Scientist in Biology @ Stanford
University (Paul R. Ehrlich (President of the Center for Conservation Biology @ Stanford University) &
Anne H. Ehrlich, “Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?,” Proceedings of the Royal Society
Biological Sciences, Proc. R. Soc. B 2013 280, published online 9 January 2013)//HA
Virtually every past civilization has eventually undergone collapse, a loss of sociopolitical-economic complexity usually accompanied by a dramatic decline in
population size [1]. Some, such as those of Egypt and China, have recovered from
collapses at various stages; others, such as that of Easter Island or the Classic Maya, were
apparently permanent [1,2]. All those previous collapses were local or
regional; elsewhere, other societies and civilizations persisted unaffected. Sometimes, as in the Tigris
and Euphrates valleys, new civilizations rose in succession. In many, if not most, cases, overexploitation
of the environment was one proximate or an ultimate cause [3].
But today, for the first time, humanity’s global civilization —the worldwide, increasingly
interconnected, highly technological society in which we all are to one degree or another,
embedded— is threatened with collapse by an array of environmental problems. Humankind finds
itself engaged in what Prince Charles described as ‘an act of suicide on a grand scale’ [4],
facing what the UK’s Chief Scientific Advisor John Beddington called a ‘perfect storm’ of environmental
problems [5]. The most serious of these problems show signs of rapidly
escalating severity, especially climate disruption. But other elements could
potentially also contribute to a collapse: an accelerating extinction of animal
and plant populations and species, which could lead to a loss of ecosystem
services essential for human survival; land degradation and land-use change; a
pole-to-pole spread of toxic compounds; ocean acidification and eutrophication (dead zones); worsening
of some aspects of the epidemiological environment (factors that make human populations susceptible
to infectious diseases); depletion of increasingly scarce resources [6,7], including
especially groundwater, which is being overexploited in many key agricultural
areas [8]; and resource wars [9]. These are not separate problems; rather they
interact in two gigantic complex adaptive systems: the biosphere system and
the human socio-economic system. The negative manifestations of these
interactions are often referred to as ‘the human predicament’ [10], and
determining how to prevent it from generating a global collapse is perhaps the foremost challenge
confronting humanity.
The human predicament is driven by overpopulation, overconsumption of
natural resources and the use of unnecessarily environmentally damaging
technologies and socio-economic-political arrangements to service Homo sapiens’
aggregate consumption [11–17]. How far the human population size now is above
the planet’s long-term carrying capacity is suggested (conservatively) by ecological
footprint analysis [18–20]. It shows that to support today’s population of seven billion
sustainably (i.e. with business as usual, including current technologies and standards of living)
would require roughly half an additional planet; to do so, if all citizens of
Earth consumed resources at the US level would take four to five more
Earths. Adding the projected 2.5 billion more people by 2050 would make the human assault on
civilization’s life-support systems disproportionately worse, because almost everywhere people face
systems with nonlinear responses [11,21–23], in which environmental damage increases at
a rate that becomes faster with each additional person. Of course, the claim is often
made that humanity will expand Earth’s carrying capacity dramatically with technological innovation
[24], but it is widely recognized that technologies can both add and subtract
from carrying capacity. The plough evidently first expanded it and now appears to be reducing
it [3]. Overall, careful analysis of the prospects does not provide much confidence that technology will
save us [25] or that gross domestic product can be disengaged from resource use [26]
2. Do current trends portend a collapse?
What is the likelihood of this set of interconnected predicaments [27] leading to a
global collapse in this century? There have been many definitions and much discussion of past
‘collapses’ [1,3,28–31], but a future global collapse does not require a careful definition. It could be
triggered by anything from a ‘small’ nuclear war, whose ecological effects could quickly end civilization
[32], to a more gradual breakdown because famines, epidemics and resource shortages cause a
disintegration of central control within nations, in concert with disruptions of trade and conflicts over
increasingly scarce necessities. In either case, regardless of survivors or replacement societies, the world
familiar to anyone reading this study and the well-being of the vast majority of people would disappear.
pg. 1-2
YIELDS IMPACT
Organic ag can outproduce industrial ag without increasing land use
Wright, 9 - Deputy Director of Coventry University's Centre for Agroecology and Food Security (Julia,
Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in an Era of Oil Scarcity, p. 19)
Nonetheless, more ecologically based, organic production approaches are sidestepped by international
development agencies and national ministries of agriculture owing to their reportedly low yield
performance and, therefore, their apparent inability to meet global food needs or be appropriate in
food insecure situations (IAC, 2003). In fact, early yield comparisons between certified
organic and industrial agriculture has indicated a yield decline of
approximately 20 per cent for organic production. However, these studies
were based on the performance of certain market-oriented organic systems
in temperate climatic regions. Whereas outputs of any one specific crop
may be lower on an organic farm than an industrialized one, total farm
yields are higher (Altieri et al, 1998). More recent studies show non-certified organic
farming approaches to achieve significant yield increases over both
traditional and industrial agriculture, and in particular in resource-poor regions on
marginal lands and in tropical and subtropical climates (Pretty and Shaxson, 1997; Souza, 1998; Altieri et
al, 1999; McNeely and Scherr, 2001; Mäder et al, 2002; Parrott, 2002; Parrott and Marsden, 2002; Pretty
et al, 2002; Rundgren, 2002; Delate and Cambardella, 2004). An analysis by Badgley et al (2007)
indicates that organic methods, which use leguminous cover crops to replace
nitrogen fertilizer, could produce enough food on a global per capita basis
to sustain the current human population, and potentially a larger
population, without increasing the agricultural land base. Overall, not only is the
common uncontextualized focus on yield performance over the short term based on outdated evidence,
but it also interferes with achieving food security goals. This focus diverts attention from equally important goals of guaranteeing harvests, increasing community resilience to shocks and stresses, and
enabling local availability of a diverse range of quality foods (Bindraban et al, 1999; Wright, 2005).
Moreover, there is a strong case that if ecologically based, organic systems had a
fraction of the investment poured, at taxpayers’ expense, into industrial farming,
their performance would be greatly enhanced (Pretty et al, 1996).
Sustainable yields are key to prevent food wars
Vatkiotis, 08 – Asia regional director for the Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue
(Michael, 05/28/08, New Straits Times, “A hungry world tests skills of peacemakers,” Lexis) //SP
THE food price crisis is threatening to plunge millions back into poverty and if not handled properly can blow out
of proportion and spark global problems affecting economic growth and political security, writes MICHAEL
VATIKIOTIS War and hunger are inseparable: long experience has shown the close
relationship between economic distress and the outbreak of conflict. But the solutions the
international community tends to apply are mostly political and rarely address material needs. Everyday
concerns of the population rarely reach the negotiating table, in part because the
economic and social problems in conflict-ridden societies are extremely complex, involve
many actors and can only be resolved in the long term. So what happens when people are driven to
kill one another for food? It's a critical question to ask as the world faces a sudden and
unexpected food price crisis that is threatening to plunge millions back into poverty. The
sharp spike in food prices this year has already generated violence. Food riots in parts of
Africa and the Caribbean have created social and political instability. In rice-growing countries
like India, Vietnam and Thailand hoarding has begun, with export bans already in place creating
inter-state friction. Myanmar's rice-growing capacity has been devastated by cyclone Nargis, which will
add to price pressures in the coming months. This is largely a crisis born of inflation and other market factors,
rather than fundamental shortages. Prices for the benchmark Thai variety of rice, a food staple across much of
Asia, have increased threefold in a year, reports the Asian Development Bank. Meat prices have risen by 60 per
cent in Bangladesh in the year ending in March, and by 45 per cent in Cambodia and 30 per cent in the
Philippines. With this sharp increase in the price of basic staples people are already hoarding, stealing and
fighting over scarce supplies. The World Food Programme calls it a "Silent Tsunami". The threat of conflict
is real, both within societies where the numbers impoverished by higher grain prices is
already high, and also between states as the trend towards commercial liberalisation
and conglomeration is suddenly reversed and replaced by subsidies, price-fixing cartels, and export
curbs. In Indonesia. a retired general recently warned: "If students demonstrate it's not a worry, but if hungry
people take to the streets, now that's dangerous." Hunger causes conflict when people
feel they have nothing to lose and are willing to kill their neighbours over scarce
resources. The peasant wars of the late 20th century in Central and South America and
the wars that sprung from famine in Nigeria, Ethiopia and Sudan are grim reminders of
man's most basic instinct, which is to fight to survive. The trouble is that in terms of resolving
conflict, we have come to rely less on material remedies and more on political artifice. Many of the internal
conflicts that have been peacefully resolved in recent years only superficially addressed the material seeds of
conflict. Peace agreements have been elite affairs where leaders of armed groups and governments reached an
understanding on how to share power within a common state. This approach is a sensible first step toward
conflict resolution: by convincing those inciting violence to lay down their arms, it becomes possible to start
designing a wider range of policies addressing socio-economic issues. However, typically, the socio-
economic changes and the economic reconstruction and development the public was
expecting trickled down slowly, if at all. Aceh remains one of the poorest parts of Indonesia, as does
Mindanao in the southern Philippines - two areas of Southeast Asia where peace has been negotiated. When
hunger drives people into conflict, we might presume that peacemaking will simply be a question of providing
food. We would be mistaken. In fact, the experience of humanitarian aid agencies in the 1970s and 80s in Africa
was that food aid tends to fuel conflict as the combatants seek to harness the supply of
nutrition to the goals of war. Experts tell us that farmers will eventually adjust the supply of food to cope
with higher demand so that prices stabilise. More encouragingly, there are signs that decades of improving cooperation between states is stimulating a collective urge to resolve the crisis. The sharing of technology is key
says former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan. He believes that farmers in Africa could double food
output in five to 10 years if rich countries partner them in a "Green Revolution" for a long-term solution to the
continent's food crisis. But realistically, trade agreements and technological advances are slow-moving
transformations. In the meantime, officials in India warn that the food price crisis could plunge
millions of people into poverty in a country that is already battling an internal Marxist
insurgency that draws support from impoverished and landless peasants. In Bangladesh, where the
soaring cost of staples has forced the marginally poor to give up meat and rice, there is a
significantly increased risk of conflict in an already fractured polity. The immediate
challenge, therefore, is to prevent and resolve conflict arising from the food crisis. This
places a significant burden on the international community to swiftly respond to
outbreaks of violence. But if people driven to war by hunger are less inclined to
compromise this makes the task of peacemaking rather more challenging. For one thing,
conflict fuelled by hunger will be more widespread, exerting strain on international agencies
involved in peacekeeping and humanitarian work. Food security is already fragile in many African
countries and protracted conflict tends to drift across borders, as we have seen in Sudan and
Congo. Peacemakers need to be more aware of the socio-economic roots of conflict. They should incorporate in
peace agreements remedies for the population's grievances and to enlist the international community's support
behind their implementation. Such remedies should include pledges by leaders to address in a meaningful
manner contentious issues such as land distribution, job creation, and racial and ethnic discrimination leading to
socioeconomic inequality. The ethnic and religious wars of the last half of the 20th century have perhaps lulled
us into a false sense of security. We have grown accustomed to resolving conflict by forging political
accommodation and compromise in situations where protagonists had much to lose materially if they kept on
fighting. But in a world where environmental and market pressures can triple the price of
staple commodities in the matter of a few months, it is harder to find the grounds for
compromise. This calls for more effective negotiating skills both domestically and internationally, bilaterally
as well as multilaterally, to resolve these crises. Markets must be kept open to assist with the flow of goods to
crisis situations, and in affected countries solutions must be found that address both elite and popular
grievances.
Food crises escalate
Calvin, ‘02 – University of Washington (William H, “A Brain For All Seasons”,
http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/BrainForAllSeasons/NAcoast.htm) //SP
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting
crop yields will cause
some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant
lands – if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, will go
marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized
countries will attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely,
to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out
or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish
the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will
be a worldwide problem – and could easily lead to a Third World War – but
Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically
altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has
excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the
North Atlantic.
AT: YIELDS LOW
Cuban ag is a unique model – their answers don’t apply because overall food production is
much higher
Project Censored 10 - a non-profit, media criticism and investigative journalism project
within the Sonoma State University Foundation (“Cuba Leads the World in Organic Farming,” Apr
30, 2010, pg. http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/12-cuba-leads-the-world-in-organicfarming/)//HA
Cuba has developed one of the most efficient organic agriculture systems in
the world, and organic farmers from other countries are visiting the island to learn the methods.
Due to the U.S. embargo, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba was unable to
import chemicals or modern farming machines to uphold a high-tech corporate farming culture.
Cuba needed to find another way to feed its people. The lost buying power
for agricultural imports led to a general diversification within farming on the
island. Organic agriculture has become key to feeding the nation’s growing urban
populations.
Cuba’s new revolution is founded upon the development of an organic
agricultural system. Peter Rosset of the Institute for Food and Development
Policy states that this is “the largest conversion from conventional
agriculture to organic or semi-organic farming that the world has ever
known.” Not only has organic farming been prosperous, but the migration of
small farms and gardens into densely populated urban areas has also played a
crucial role in feeding citizens. State food rations were not enough for Cuban families, so
farms began to spring up all over the country. Havana, home to nearly 20 percent of
Cuba’s population, is now also home to more than 8,000 officially recognized
gardens, which are in turn cultivated by more than 30,000 people and cover nearly 30 percent of the
available land. The growing number of gardens might seem to bring up the
problem of space and price of land. However, “the local governments
allocate land, which is handed over at no cost as long as it is used for cultivation,” says S. Chaplowe
in the Newsletter of the World Sustainable Agriculture Association.
The removal of the “chemical crutch” has been the most important factor to
come out of the Soviet collapse, trade embargo, and subsequent organic revolution. Though
Cuba is organic by default because it has no means of acquiring pesticides and herbicides, the
quality and quantity of crop yields have increased. This increase is occurring at a
lower cost and with fewer health and environmental side effects than ever . There are 173
established ‘vermicompost’ centers across Cuba, which produce 93,000 tons of natural compost a year.
The agricultural abundance that Cuba is beginning to experience is
disproving the myth that organic farming on a grand scale is inefficient or
impractical.
So far Cuba has been successful with its “transformation from
conventional, high input, mono-crop intensive agriculture” to a more
diverse and localized farming system that continues to grow. The country is rapidly
moving away from a monoculture of tobacco and sugar. It now needs much more diversity
of food crops as well as regular crop rotation and soil conservation efforts to
continue to properly nourish millions of Cuban citizens.
In June 2000, a group of Iowa farmers, professors, and students traveled to Cuba to view that country’s
approach to sustainable agriculture. Rather than relying on chemical fertilizers, Cuba relies on
organic farming, using compost and worms to fertilize soil. There are many
differences between farming in the United States and Cuba, but “in many ways they’re ahead of us,” say
Richard Wrage, of Boone County Iowa Extension Office. Lorna Michael Butler, Chair of Iowa State
University’s sustainable agriculture department said, “more students should study Cuba’s growing
system.” (AP 6/5/00)
Cuban yields are much higher with zero reliance on industrial ag
Zunes, 2k - associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the
University of San Francisco (Stephen, “Cuba’s New Revolution” Design/Builder, August
http://stephenzunes.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Cubas-New-Revolution.pdf)
Despite an 80 percent drop in the availability of chemical pesticides and a
50 percent drop in petroleum for agriculture from 1989 levels, Cuban farmers have
actually increased the quantity and quality of crop yields at lower costs and
with fewer health and environmental side effects. Fungi, nematodes, wasps, and ants have all been
harvested for pest control. Much of this biological pest control has been developed in
cottage industries led by scientists in this poor but highly educated society.
Arnaldo Coro a leading Cuban scientist. recalled that Cuban entomologists “threw a big party” when
they learned the government was ending the import of most pesticides and herbicides. “Finally,” he
exclaimed, “our discoveries were being implemented!"
On a trip to Cuba in 1994, I visited a vermicompost production center in Pinar del Rio where dozens of
concrete troughs of manure are used for raising worms in the shade of large mango trees. Within three
months the worm-manure mixture is ready for application. The nitrogen content is higher than chemical
fertilizers and the vermicompost leaves no unhealthy residue in the plants. There are nearly 200 such
vermicompost centers in the country that produce more than 100,000 tons of vermicompost per year.
In addition, Cuba is moving away from the monoculture model - based on exports of
sugar and tobacco - and growing more food crops, particularly soybeans to support the country's
burgeoning soy industry. Crop rotation, intercropping, and soil conservation
efforts are wide- spread. Oxen are being bred to replace tractors. There are
incentives for urban dwellers to join the growing rural agricultural workforce, either permanently or on
a short-term basis.
AT: MALTHUS
Urban ag eliminates US overconsumption – the plan makes population growth sustainable
Peters, 10 – LL.M. expected 2011, University of Arkansas School of Law, Graduate Program in
Agricultural and Food Law; J.D. 2010, University of Oregon School of Law (Kathryn, “Creating a
Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution” J. ENVTL. LAW AND LITIGATION [Vol. 25, 203,
http://law.uoregon.edu/org/jell/docs/251/peters.pdf)
Overconsumption by the developed world, and within that subset by the wealthy,
results in inequitable resource depletion and may lead to “resource
wars.”135 Building local communities where the consumption of natural
resources is reduced and all of society has equal access to food, security,
education, healthcare, fair pay, and equitable treatment fosters
sustainability.
1. Equity and Industrial Agriculture
The harmful effects of industrial agriculture’s chemical farming practices inequitably impact residents
living near industrial farms, as well as infants and young children who are more susceptible to the risks
of long-term health effects caused by agricultural chemicals.136 Agribusiness benefits from the
intensive use of chemicals while society pays the price. For example, several cancers, brain and nervous
system disorders, as well as other immune system disruptions have been linked to pesticides.137
Government expenditures in the form of farm subsidies benefit agribusinesses at the expense of small,
local, and organic farmers.138 All of these circumstances result in intragenerational inequities.
Unsound farming practices, indiscriminate use of chemicals, water
contamination, soil depletion, pollution, and consumption of finite land
and oil resources by today’s generations will all impact future generations’
ability to sustain themselves. If the current levels of depletion, destruction,
and pollution continue, industrial agricultural methods will create
intergenerational inequity because crop yields will continue to decline and
the planet will no longer have adequate resources to support an evergrowing population.
AT: CUBAN BIOTECH DISPROVES
Cuban biotech isn’t under corporate control and has strong biosafety
Altieri, 12 - Profesor of Agroecology at the University of California, Berkeley and President of the Latin
American Scientific Society of Agroecology (Michael, “The Cuban Agriculture’s Paradox: The Persistence
of the Agroecological Paradigm and the Emergence of Biotechnology” Monthly Review, January,
http://www.agroeco.org/socla/pdfs/AF-CubaAgroParadox.pdf)
Cuba has invested millions in biotechnological research and development
for agriculture through its Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB) and a network
of institutions across the country. Cuban biotechnology is free from corporate
control and intellectual property-right regimes that exist in other countries. Cuban
biotechnologists affirm that their biosafety system sets strict biological and
environmental security norms. Given this autonomy and advantages
biotechnological innovations could efficiently be applied to solve problems
such as viral crop diseases or drought tolerance for which agroecological
solutions are not yet available. In 2009 the CIGB planted in Yagüajay, Sancti Spiritus, three
hectares of genetically modified corn (transgenic corn FR-Bt1) on an experimental basis. This variety is
supposed to suppress populations of the damaging larval stage of the “palomilla del maíz” moth
(Spodoptera frugiperda, also known as the fall armyworm). By 2009 a total of 6,000 hectares were
planted to the transgenic (also referred to as genetically modified, or GM) variety across several
provinces. From an agroecological perspective it is perplexing that the first transgenic variety to be
tested in Cuba is Bt corn, given that in the island there are so many biological control alternatives to
regulate lepidopteran pests. The diversity of local maize varieties include some that exhibit moderateto-high levels of pest resistance, offering significant opportunities to increase yields with conventional
plant breeding and known agroecological management strategies. Many centers for multiplication of
insect parasites and pathogens (CREEs, Centros de Reproducción de Entomófagos y Entomopatógenos)
produce Bacillus thuringiensis (a microbial insecticide) and Trichogramma (small wasps), both highly
effective against moths such as the palomilla. In addition, mixing corn with other crops such as beans or
sweet potatoes in polycultures produces significantly less pest attack than maize grown in
monocultures. This also increases the land equivalent ratio (growing more total crops in a given area of
land) and protects the soil.
When transgenic Bt maize was planted in 2008 as a test crop, researchers and farmers from the
agroecological movement expressed concern. Several people warned that the release of transgenic
crops endangered agrobiodiversity and contradicted the government’s own agricultural production
plans by diverting the focus from agroecological farming that had been strategically adopted as a policy
in Cuba. Others felt that biotechnology was geared towards the interests of the multinational
corporations and the market. Taking into account its potential environmental and public health risks, it
would be better for Cuba to continue emphasizing agroecological alternatives that have proven to be
safe and have allowed the country to produce food under difficult economic and climatic circumstances.
The main demonstrated advantage of GM crops has been to simplify the farming process, allowing
farmers to work more land. GM crops that resist herbicides (such as “Roundup Ready” corn and
soybeans) and that produce their own insecticide (such as Bt corn) generally do not yield any more than
comparable non-GM crops. On the other hand, using these GM crops along with higher levels of
mechanization (especially larger tractors) have now made it possible for the size of a family corn and
soybean farm in the U.S. Midwest to increase from around 240 hectares (600 acres) to around 800
hectares (2,000 acres).
In September 2010 a meeting of experts concerned about transgenic crops was convened with board
and staff members from the National Center for Biological Security and the Office for Environmental
Regulation and Nuclear Security (Centro Nacional de Seguridad Biológica and the Oficina de Regulación
Ambiental y Seguridad Nuclear), institutions entrusted with licensing GM crops. The experts issued a
statement calling for a moratorium on GM crops until more information was available and society has a
chance to debate the environmental and health effects of the technology. However, until now there has
been no response to this request. One positive outcome of the year-long debate on
the inconsistence of planting FR-Bt1 transgenic corn in Cuba was the open
recognition by the authorities of the potential devastating consequences of
GM crops for the small farmer sector. Although it appears that the use of transgenic corn
will be limited exclusively to the areas of Cubasoy and other conventional areas under strict supervision,
this effort is highly questionable.12
AT: AVERY EVIDENCE
Avery’s a liar and is paid by agribusiness
Funes and Altieri, 9 – *Cuban Association of Agricultural and Forestry Technicians AND **Profesor of
Agroecology at the University of California, Berkeley and President of the Latin American Scientific
Society of Agroecology (Fernando and Miguel, “The Avery Diet: The Hudson Institute’s Misinformation
Campaign Against Cuban Agriculture” May, http://globalalternatives.org/files/AveryCubaDiet.pdf)
An article written by Dennis Avery, "Cubans Starve on Diet of Lies," was reproduced around the internet
in April of this year. 1 Avery is the director of the Center for Global Food Issues at
the Hudson Institute, a notorious Right-wing think tank. The financial backers of the
Hudson Institute include major agribusiness(e.g. Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra,
Cargill), biotech and pesticide manufacturers(e.g. American Cyanamid, Ciba Geigy,
Monsanto, Syngenta). Avery is a veteran of the State Department and the U.S.D.A. He is a wellknown pro-industry pundit, and is an outspoken supporter of genetically-engineered crops,
pesticides, food irradiation, industrial farming, and free trade, as well as a long-time critic of organic
farming. He famously authored the book Saving the Planet With Pesticides and Plastic: The
Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming (2000).
His article begins with the following phrases:
"The Cubans told the world they had heroically learned to feed themselves without fuel or farm
chemicals after their Soviet subsidies collapsed in the early 1990s. They bragged about their “peasant
cooperatives,” their biopesticides and organic fertilizers. They heralded their earthworm culture and the
predator wasps they unleashed on destructive caterpillars. They boasted about the heroic ox teams they
had trained to replace tractors. Organic activists all over the world swooned. Now, a senior Ministry of
Agriculture official has admitted in the Cuban press that 84 percent of Cuba’s current food consumption
isimported, according to our agricultural attaché in Havana. The organic success was all a lie—a great,
gaudy, Communist-style Big Lie of the type that dictators behind the Iron Curtain routinely used
throughout the Cold War to hornswoggle the Free World."
Despite the notably bombastic and un-scientific language, his claims deserve
examination and rebuttal. He does not cite a source for the 84% figure.
Nevertheless, it has been widely reported in the media that Megalys Calvo, Vice Minister of the
Economy and Planning Ministry,said in February of 2007 that 84% of items "in the basic food basket" at
that time were imported. 2 However, we believe these percentages represent only the
food that is distributed through regulated government channels by means
of a ration card. Overall data show that Cuba’s food import dependency has
been dropping for decades, despite brief upturns due to natural and human-made disasters.
The best time series available on Cuban food import dependency is summarized in the following graph:
(graph omitted by dheidt)
One can see that Cuba's food import dependence actually declined between 1980 and 1997, aside from
a spike in the early 1990s, when trade relations with the former Socialist Bloc collapsed.
Avery doesn’t cite data and Cuba’s model is succeeding
Funes and Altieri, 9 – *Cuban Association of Agricultural and Forestry Technicians AND **Profesor of
Agroecology at the University of California, Berkeley and President of the Latin American Scientific
Society of Agroecology (Fernando and Miguel, “The Avery Diet: The Hudson Institute’s Misinformation
Campaign Against Cuban Agriculture” May, http://globalalternatives.org/files/AveryCubaDiet.pdf)
Yes Cuba imports food, as do most other coutries in the world. But does this
mean that Cuba’s agroecological model is on the verge of collapse and that all
reports praising Cuba’s agroecological achievements are a "Big Lie" as Avery asserts? It is
impressive that Cuba has been able to maintain an acceptable level of food
self sufficiency despite being the country perhaps hardest hit in the world
by climate change, with 3 major hurricanes just last year. In fact, the very prevalence of
complex and diversified cropping systems managed by small farmers has
been of key importance to the stability of Cuban agriculture and the food
security of the island, as structurally diverse farms maintain acceptable productivity levels in the
midst of stressful climatic conditions.
As already mentioned, what country does not import part of their food supplies? Let’s examine
the US industrial agricultural model that Avery exalts as so efficient because
only 2% of the population is engaged in food production. Such “efficiency” was reached because four
million farms have disappeared in the United States in the last 50 years. Food imports have
been steadily rising for years. According to USDA
(http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080115/us-food-safety-the-importalarm-keepssounding.htm, http://www.ca.uky.edu/AGC/NEWS/2005/Feb/imports.htm ), food imports to the United
States have almost doubled in the past decade, from $36 billion in 1997 to more than $70 billion in
2007. In 2008 the U.S. imported more agricultural goods than it exported in June and August, the first
monthly trade deficits since 1986, a situation that has slowly been aggravated by the economic
recession and the millions of acres devoted to biofuels in the Farm Belt. Let’s add to these figures the
fact that there are 36.2 million hungry or food-insecure Americans; 50,000 emergency food sites visited
annually by 10% of the country’s population; 30 million people receiving food stamps (total food stamp
spending for 2006 was $32.8 billion). Farm bankruptcies, foreclosures and forced evictions have driven
the farm population to less than 2% of the population or about 2.128 million farms. Tragically, in the
USA there are more prisoners than farmers. In today’s economic downturn, farmers face unsustainable
levels of debt and small and mid-sized farms are threatened with disappearance in one or two decades,
a tragedy of economic, social and ecological dimensions. As in Cuba, family farms in the USA
could constitute the cornerstone of the country’s food sovereignty and
economic development. This is the truth that has been hidden from the US
public by Avery and his associates, and their lies leave out the likelihood
that the situation will get worse. In these times of climate change, uncertain energy prices
and financial crisis, surely the USA could learn much from Cuba regarding how to
achieve a more energy efficient, sustainable, socially just and resilient
agriculture.
Avery’s statistics are out of context
Altieri, 12 - Profesor of Agroecology at the University of California, Berkeley and President of the Latin
American Scientific Society of Agroecology (Michael, “The Cuban Agriculture’s Paradox: The Persistence
of the Agroecological Paradigm and the Emergence of Biotechnology” Monthly Review, January,
http://www.agroeco.org/socla/pdfs/AF-CubaAgroParadox.pdf)
An article written by Dennis Avery from the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute,
“Cubans Starve on Diet of Lies,”6 helped fuel the debate around the paradox. He stated:
The Cubans told the world they had heroically learned to feed themselves without fuel or farm
chemicals after their Soviet subsidies collapsed in the early 1990s. They bragged about their ‘peasant
cooperatives,’ their biopesticides and organic fertilizers. They heralded their earthworm culture and the
predator wasps they unleashed on destructive caterpillars. They boasted about the heroic ox teams they
had trained to replace tractors. Organic activists all over the world swooned. Now, a senior Ministry of
Agriculture official has admitted in the Cuban press that 84 percent of Cuba’s current food consumption
is imported, according to our agricultural attaché in Havana. The organic success was all a lie.7
Avery has used this misinformation to promote a campaign discrediting
authors who studied and informed about the heroic achievements of Cuban people
in the agricultural field: he has accused these scientists of being communist
liars.
the truth About Food imports in Cuba
Avery referred to statements of Magalys Calvo, then Vice Minister of the Economy and
Planning Ministry, who said in February of 2007 that 84 percent of items “in the basic food
basket” at that time were imported. However, these percentages represent only
the food that is distributed through regulated government channels by means of a
ration card. Overall data show that Cuba’s food import dependency has
been dropping for decades, despite brief upturns due to natural and human-made disasters.
The best time series available on Cuban food import dependency (see Chart 1) shows that it actually
declined between 1980 and 1997, aside from a spike in the early 1990s, when trade relations with the
former Socialist Bloc collapsed.8
AT: NON-STATE PIC
The Cuban ag model is successful because of state ownership
Ruiz-Marrero, 13 - research associate at the Institute for Social Ecology and director of the Puerto Rico
Project on Biosafety (Carmelo, “Cuba’s other revolution”, 6/13,
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bK21TEk9l5AJ:progresoweekly.com/ini/index.php/cuba/3988-cuba-other-revolution+&cd=39&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
Cuba is the one country in the world that has made the furthest strides, and in
the shortest time, in moving from industrial conventional agricultural
production to organic farming. This achievement has been celebrated and documented by
numerous experts and observers, including land reform scholar Peter Rosset and agroecologist Miguel
Altieri, academic bodies like the Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology (SOCLA), and NGO’s
such as Food First and the Worldwatch Institute, and have been the subject of a 2006 documentary,
titled The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (2).
The country was in a very unusual and critical situation at the beginning of the 1990’s. With the
implosion of the Soviet block, the subsidies that Cuba received in the form of food and farm inputs
ceased overnight, causing an unprecedented crisis. With the Torricelli and Helms-Burton Acts, passed in
1992 and 1996 respectively, the American embargo tightened its noose around Cuba’s economy, further
worsening an already dire scenario. But the Caribbean island nation pulled through by way of a
successful transformation of its agricultural model, moving it towards agroecological production largely
based on small family farms.
Back in March in the Colombian city of Medellín I had the great pleasure of spending time with Cuban
professors Fernando Funes and Luis Vásquez, both of them scientists of international renown and
faculty members of SOCLA’s doctoral program (3). Between long walks through the city center and over
beers in the Pilarica neighborhood, we talked at length about the challenges of agriculture, ecology and
socialism. This article is based on those conversations and on published writings by Funes and other
authors.
Funes says that following the withdrawal of Soviet support, “the critical situation created in Cuban
agriculture propitiated the transformation of the agrarian structure and the reach of a new
technological, economic, ecological and social dimension, with the end of achieving food security with
new methods and strategies.” (4)
But before seeking to apply the Cuban experiences to other countries and contexts it is necessary to
consider the country’s unique and extraordinary circumstances. The 1959 revolution and subsequent
sweeping land reform were a unique happening in Latin American history: the landed ruling class was
defeated, uprooted and expelled. The country’s wealth and land were redistributed; and as a result,
access to land is not a problem, and all farmers in the country enjoy first-rate free education and health
care. Latin America’s land-owning elites, assisted by the murderous U.S. counterinsurgency, have not
spared any resources, be they financial, ideological or military, to prevent another Cuban-style
revolution in the Western hemisphere.
Nevertheless, many of Cuba’s lessons can be learned and applied in other
countries. One of the key elements in the success of agroecology and food
sovereignty in Cuba has been the support of the state . The Cuban experience
demonstrates that a successful transition to agroecology requires major
involvement by the public sector. The country’s organic revolution contradicts the common
image of the Cuban government as bureaucratized and lacking in creativity or imagination. If the
Cuban state were as inflexible and inefficient as the revolution’s derisive
critics make it out to be, it would not have taken the right measures, and in
a rapid and decisive manner, to avert a fatal food crisis.
SOFT POWER ADVANTEGE
UNIQUENESS-RUSSIA EXPANSION-COALITIONS
Russian influence in Latin America growing, seeking a multipolar world--trade negotiations,
and Russian-led coalitions prove
Nechepurenko 13, Writer/reporter for the Moscow Times(Ivan, ""5/30/13, The Moscow Times,
http://indrus.in/world/2013/05/30/russia_seeks_to_restore_influence_in_latin_
america_25591.html)//AD
Russia has recently reinvigorated its efforts to project its
influence around the world, especially in other areas where its influence
has declined. Russia has demonstrated its increasing leverage in Latin
America with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meeting representatives of the
Community of Latin American and Caribbean States in Moscow on Wednesday. The
foreign ministers of Cuba, Costa Rica and Haiti and the deputy foreign
minister of Chile discussed trade, political dialogue and a visa-free regime
with Lavrov, with everyone in agreement that Russia's relations with the region are ripe enough to establish "a permanent
mechanism for political dialogue and cooperation in a Russia-CELAC
format," a statement from Russia's Foreign Ministry said. CELAC was founded in 2010 as a
counterweight to the U.S.-led Organization of American States. It consists of 33 states
Apart from Latin America,
representing almost 600 million people and producing $7 trillion in annual GDP.
"This is a serious attempt by Latin American states
to counter U.S. economic and political influence in the region,"
said Mikhail Belyat, an independent Latin American expert
and lecturer at the Russian State University for the Humanities. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discusses trade and a visa-free regime with the foreign ministers of
Cuba, Costa Rica and Haiti. In the aftermath of the Cuban Revolution, the Soviet Union rapidly increased its economic and military influence in Latin America only to
see that influence subside with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apart from Latin America, Russia has recently reinvigorated its efforts to project its influence
Russia has been actively
promoting the concept of a multi-polar world, playing an active role in such
organizations as the BRICS and the Eurasian Economic Space, which is planned to be
transformed into a full-fledged Eurasian Union in 2015. "Our friends have expressed their desire to make
permanent contacts between the CELAC and BRICS. Particularly on the sidelines of various meetings.
around the world, especially in other areas where its influence has declined. To that end,
We believe this is a very attractive suggestion and we will definitely discuss it with other states that are members of this association," Lavrov said at the news
conference that followed negotiations. BRICS consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, representing large, fast-growing economies with an increasing
influence on global affairs. Just like BRICS, CELAC countries have enjoyed strong economic growth of 4.5 percent on average over the last three years, which in turn
drives these states to look to distant markets. "Like Russia, these countries want to diversify their economies and export markets so that their goals complement
each other," Belyat said. Trade between Russia and Latin America reached $16 billion in 2012 alone. In order to complement the exchange of goods with the
the sides have agreed to put their efforts into establishing a visafree regime between CELAC countries and Russia. Although Russians already enjoy visa-free travel to
exchange of people,
most countries of Latin America, including Brazil, Argentina and Chile, Costa Rica and Panama still require Russian citizens to apply for entry clearance in advance.
Russia has been negotiating visa-free entry for its citizens for some time now, with the most well-known process taking place with the EU. Russia has noted that the
EU already grants visa-free access to such countries as Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela — countries which enjoy a similar level of economic prosperity as Russia. As the
bureaucratic process in the EU drags out visa-free negotiations, Moscow is looking to other regions to expand its influence. "We used to have hectares full of Lada
I predict Russia will become
more prominent in Latin America , and we will see more Latin American goods in
our stores."
cars along the Panama Canal, while our tractors were plowing Mexican lands," Belyat said. "So
AT: ECONOMIC DOWNTURN STOPS RUSSIAN EXPANSION
Russia's expansionist policies have remained the same over time--current arms treaties, trade
agreements, and military activities have not declined
Blank 09, Professor of National Security Affairs and Russian National Security Studies at the Strategic
Studies Institute of the US Army War College in Pennsylvania. MA and PhD in Russian History from the
University of Chicago. He was written more than 600 articles on foreign policy and international
relations and is also a prolific author(Stephan, "Russia in Latin America: Geopolitical Games in the US's
Neighborhood" April 2009 No Specific Date,
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=h
ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifri.org%2Fdownloads%2Fifriblankrussiaandlatinamericaengapril09.pdf&ei=SxTbUc
uOBYGmyQHbjYHoDw&usg=AFQjCNGDal476vGMPD2GPLGxJ7OdIXrLQ&sig2=nhGaHFXFenQ3WVdhM7crxg)//AD
Russia’s involvement in Latin America is not a new policy but reflects long-term aspirations to
assert itself as a global power and advance the idea of a multipolar world. It is a
fundamentally geopolitical approach directed against the US with an economic
component, rather than an economic approach to foreign policy with
strategic objectives. Moscow's 2008 initiatives in the region reflected enhanced capabilities which are now in decline due to the global
economic crisis. The real threat that Moscow poses to the region stems from its
weapons sales to Venezuela, which the latter is already using in support of insurgency in Colombia if not elsewhere. In 2008, Russia, like
Columbus, discovered Latin America. Or so Western and Russian media would have us believe. Leading commentators speculated about the motives behind
presidential and ministerial visits to and from Russia;
major arms, trade and energy deals; visits by Russian long-range
bombers, and joint naval exercises with Venezuela, and fleet calls to Nicaragua and
Cuba occurred. Although the Pentagon professes no alarm, Washington sent Thomas Shannon, the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America,
to Moscow to ascertain Russia’s precise aims. Having expressed US concerns regarding the destabilizing
effects of Russian arms sales to Venezuela, Shannon’s visit undoubtedly proved that Russia could
get Washington’s attention.1 Moreover, for the first time in years, the Pentagon in 2008 stood up the Fourth Fleet in the South
Atlantic. Its formal missions are to safeguard maritime routes, conduct disaster relief, engage in humanitarian operations, and conduct multilateral operations with
Latin American navies.2 Nevertheless, observers naturally see it as a response to heightened risk perception. However, Russia’s quest for influence in Latin America
Russia started seeing Latin America as an area
of increasing global economic importance in 2003 and began selling weapons
there in 2004 so current policy represents the continuation and expansion of an earlier base, not a new
initiative.3 What had changed, at least until the current global economic crisis beginning in 2008, was Moscow’s capability to implement its policies and its
steadily growing anti-Americanism. Because the economic crisis has reduced Russia’s and Latin American states’
capabilities for joint action, most notably in Venezuela’s case, the vigor of Russia’s thrust into Latin America will probably diminish accordingly. Russia’s
ability to obtain meaningful influence and a truly strategic position in Latin
America stems from its capacity for large-scale foreign policy initiatives.
began in 1997 and its goals have been remarkably consistent.
those perspectives remain in
place and will return if Russian capacities for action recover.
Therefore, 2009 should see a retrenchment from 2008’s more grandiose perspectives, but clearly
UNIQUENESS-CHINESE/RUSSIAN EXPANSION-GENERIC
Chinese and Russian influence expanding in the Latin American region--trade, cooperation,
and investment
Gutiérrez Del Cid 13, Ana Teresa Gutiérrez Del Cid is Professor, Department of Culture and Politics,
Metropolitan Autonomous University, Xochimilco Campus , Mexico City(Ana Teresa, "Russian Factor in
Latin America," 25/01/2013, Valdai Club, http://valdaiclub.com/latin_america/54180.html)//AD
Geopolitical trends in Latin America and the Caribbean took a sharp turn at
the beginning of XXI century. Many Latin American leaders have created a new foreign policy aimed at building a multipolar
dynamics of global international relations, in an environment that counteracts American
unilateralism. With the moratorium in Argentina and its huge economic crisis, most Latin American states
disenchanted with the economic policies of the Washington Consensus,
prevalent since the nineties. The end of regimes in Argentina, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador were accompanied by
corruption scandals of unprecedented scale, leading to popular uprisings. This meant that in South America a new generation of politicians who opposed to the
application of the orthodox policies of the Washington Consensus rose to power. Unless Mexico, Colombia and Honduras, this new generation of politicians believes
that Latin America should not be limited to free trade agreements with the United States, should reconsider the type of orthodox monetarist policies and should
seek diversification of economic and trade policy. They also opposed the U.S. backed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and U.S. policy interference in the
region through Plan Colombia. President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela is the most extreme example of this new generation of Latin American leaders, who also
exercises influence on the Andean countries like Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador. His vision is more radical than that of Da Silva in Brazil and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina,
who, however, confronts the International Monetary Fund because this country couldn't carry out the restructuring of the economy, and declared to this
Since President Putin's visit to Brazil in 2004, trade
relations and policies in the region were strengthened. For Russia's
strategy, strengthening ties with Brazil is just one step in the development
of Russian interests in South America. Russia's good relations with
Venezuela and Brazil mean that Russia's influence in these two important
countries of the region is growing, and also that bilateral trade and
economic exchange are improving. This process will give Moscow a greater presence in both countries, which are most
important in terms of geopolitical dynamics of the region. Therefore, the military balance of power might begin
to change dramatically in South America in the coming years. As recognized by the Stratfor
intelligence source, the growing economic, military ties, development cooperation in the
nuclear and space technology between Russia and Brazil and Venezuela
would alter the geopolitical correlation in the Southern American Cone. Russia,
international organization that they can´t pay the debt.
in this regard, has come to terms with the Brazilian government to develop its nuclear industry. Vladimir Putin during his 2004 visit said that Russian companies
were interested to help Brazil in the development of a third nuclear plant at Angra do Reis Complex in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Nuclear technology sales to Brazil,
combined with the growing Russian-Brazilian cooperation in other areas, are intended to generate foreign exchange and boost high-tech exports to Russia. The
nearby Russian-Brazilian ties also expand Moscow's geopolitical influence in Latin America. A strong domestic nuclear industry would also be strategically
advantageous to the external influence of Brazil, as a dominant regional power in Latin America. The creation of a strong and economically successful high-tech
industry is a goal of the Brazilian government to increase its geopolitical profile and its international influence. Even if Brazil does not have any intention of building
nuclear weapons, a strong potential nuclear industry to produce such weapons would force the powers to conduct its relations with this country more carefully.
Strengthening its strategic partnership with Russia in space technology, Brazil wants, with the help of China and Ukraine, to create a launching rocket center in
Alcantara.
Through increasing the level of its cooperation with Brazil and other
Latin American countries Russia and China are trying to strengthen their
geopolitical influence and presence in this region at a time when the U.S.
position in this region has been neglected because of the war against
terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and in general because of the U.S. position to
focus its activities in the Middle East. The U.S. position in Latin American region focuses mainly in Colombia and
specifically in the Plan Colombia.
UNIQUENESS-CHINESE EXPANSION-CUBA SPECIFIC
China expanding its influence in the Caribbean--bolstering soft power through increased
trade, access to resources, credit deals and oil projects
Franks 11, Staff writer for Thompson Reuters(Jeff, "Chinese navy hospital ship visits Cuba, Caribbean,"
10/22/11, Reuters, http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/10/21/idINIndia-60058520111021)//AD
- A Chinese navy hospital ship called the Peace Ark sailed on Friday into Havana Bay in
Cuba, reflecting good relations between the communist allies and China's
expanding global presence. The 580-foot (178 meters) ship was met by Cuban naval officials in a low-profile arrival ceremony that
(Reuters)
international media were not invited to attend. Chinese sailors lined the decks of the white vessel, which has red crosses painted on its side, as it entered the
historic bay of the Cuban capital and was guided by tugboats into port. It flew Cuban and Chinese flags from its mast. The trip is China's first operational naval
mission to the Caribbean Sea, according to the blog of U.S. Naval War College professor Andrew Erickson. According to Cuban news agency Prensa Latina and
Chinese news reports, the Peace Ark will stay in Cuba until Wednesday, then sail to Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Costa Rica in a 100-day voyage known as
"Harmonious Mission 2011." Prensa Latina said there would be scientific exchanges during the ship's stay in Havana, but did not specify if medical treatment would
be given to locals, as is often the case when hospital ships stop in foreign ports of call. Chinese media said the ship has 300 hospital beds, eight operating rooms and
107 medical workers, including doctors and nurses.
Military experts and China watchers say the ship is one of the ways
in which the Asian giant is increasing its use of "soft power" to burnish its image and achieve other
policy goals such as increased trade and access to raw materials.
The Peace Ark was launched four years ago but is making
China's
presence in Latin America has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years
and it has become the creditor of last resort for cash-strapped Cuba. Cuba
owes several billion dollars to China, and earlier this year the two
governments signed a series of bilateral accords that will increase Chinese
participation on Cuban onshore and offshore oil exploration and in other
areas of Cuban life. The two governments are negotiating a deal for China to lead a
$6 billion refurbishment of a refinery in Cienfuegos on Cuba's southern coast, with Venezuela providing financial backing for the
only its second trip abroad after treating 15,500 people last year on a voyage to the Gulf of Aden and five African and Asian countries.
project.
LINK-US ENGAGEMENT SOLVES-GENERIC
China is exploiting Washington's weak relations with Latin America--economic engagement is
the only way to moderate Chinese expansion
Johnson 05, Senior foreign policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, testifying before Congress and
publishing studies that covered Latin American politics, trade, security initiatives, immigration and
political relations. He has made appearances in the Wall Street Journal, the Miami Herald, Business
Week, MSNBC, CNN, etc. He also served in the Bureaus of Inter-American and Public Affairs at the
Department of State(Stephen, "Balancing China's Growing Influence in Latin America" 10/24/05, The
Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/10/balancing-chinas-growinginfluence-in-latin-america)//AD
In the 1960s, the Soviet Union defied America's Monroe Doctrine by supporting Fidel Castro's mili-tary buildup in Cuba. Later, it supported insurgencies in Central
America. This triggered a competition among existing right-wing dictatorships, Marxist authoritarianism, and the U.S. democratic model. In the end, democracy and
open markets won. Pro-moted by the United States, these principles have generally made Latin American states more viable politically, economically, and
commercially. Today, another communist state-
the People's Republic of China (PRC)-is seeking trade, diplo-matic, and
military ties in Latin America and the Car-ibbean . The region is rich in natural resources
and developing markets for manufactured goods and even arms. China does not
currently pose a direct military threat in Latin America and has steadily embraced market concepts, but it represents serious
competi-tion that could dilute U.S. influence. Washington could ignore this intrusion or attempt to contain it.
Ignoring it leaves a vacuum for China to fill, while trying to contain it runs against America's own free market
ideals. Instead, the United States can best look after its hemispheric interests and
moderate China's presence by: ◾Consolidating trade relations with Latin
America and removing protectionist U.S. trade barriers, ◾Emphasizing
comprehensive relationships as opposed to narrow-interest diplomacy such as counternarcotics, ◾Minimizing
unproductive restrictions on assistance to U.S. neighbors, and ◾Pressing harder for democratic
and economic reforms, prioritizing support for these pur-poses, and reenergizing public diplomacy. China's Interest in the Americas China
is the world's oldest continuous civiliza-tion with more than 3,500 years of written history. Its power has risen and declined, most notably in the mid-1800s, when
the ruling Qing Dynasty crumbled, inviting rebellion and foreign interven-tion. At the end of World War II, the Nationalist government, weakened by a decade of war
against Japan and wracked by corruption and incompe-tence, fought a civil war against the Chinese Com-munist Party and was defeated. By 1950, communist
leaders like Mao Zedong believed their authoritarianism would return China to glory, a belief that expired after 30 million people starved to death in state-induced
famines in the early 1960s and another 10 million perished in fanatical ideological campaigns. In December 1978, after several "great leaps" backward, Com-munist
Party leader Deng Xiaoping introduced eco-nomic reforms that have steadily transformed the PRC into a remarkable hybrid-a "socialist market economy"-in
essence, a communist state that uses market-based pricing principles. Feeding the Dragon. Twenty-five years into this experiment, China has the world's sixthlargest econ-omy, the third-largest defense budget according to some estimates, and the largest national population (1.3 billion people). According to the World
China needs resources to feed its
rapidly expanding economy, but it does not have sufficient oil, natural gas,
aluminum, copper, or iron to satisfy its energy and manufacturing needs.
Furthermore, it needs trade partners to buy its elec-tronics, apparel, toys,
and footwear. While commu-nist China is embracing market concepts, it still has a non-market economy in which a disciplined totalitar-ian party
Bank, its gross domestic product of $1.6 trillion is growing about 9 percent per year.
retains full authority (through the central government) over non-state investment, import, export, and financial decisions. China's neighbors are competing for
Latin America is a particularly promising
prospect. It is relatively unindustrialized and has an abundance of raw materials.
Moreover, authoritar-ian leaders and/or corrupt oligarchies control a number of governments. Signing purchase
agree-ments with them is much easier than dealing with the panoply of
private corporations found in more democratic countries. Challenging the United States.
China's main rival for global preeminence is the United States. China sees
the United States as preventing Tai-wan's reunification with the mainland
and thwarting Beijing's rise as a power. Previously, China was isolated, but now plays key roles in Asian
geopolitics and aspires to do so elsewhere. Besides status as a nuclear nation, it is a member of the U.N. Security Council, the World Trade
Organization, the Group of 77 developing nations, and the Asia Pacific Economic Coopera-tion group. It also holds observer status in
the Organization of American States. While China has become the second-largest U.S. trade partner after Canada, it
many of the same world markets, as are Europe and the United States.
challenges U.S. influence wherever it can. In fact,
it will soon have more attack submarines than the
United States, with the addition of four Russian Kilo-class subs and new diesel-electric vessels equipped with technology that will allow them to run
quieter than nuclear submarines.[1] According to former U.S. Ambassador to Beijing James Lilly, "[ T]he facts are that [the
Chinese] run massive intelligence operations against us, they make open
statements against us, their high-level documents show that they are not
friendly to us." Chinese military white papers promote power pro-jection and describe U.S. policies as "hegemonism and power politics."[2] In the
Western Hemisphere, the Chinese are taking advantage of failures of half-hearted
mar-ket reforms and Washington's unwillingness to pursue neighborhood
relations with much enthu-siasm. National Defense University professor Cyn-thia A. Watson notes, "[T]he 1990s turned into a
period of severe disappointment as free markets led to rampant corruption and unfulfilled expec-tations in Latin America while Washington
became the world's superpower rather than a part-ner for the region."[3] Isolating
Taiwan. Since the 1949 civil war, Tai-wan has been separate from the PRC, and the PRC views Taiwan as a "renegade province" that must be reunified with the rest
of China. Part of Beijing's plan to bring it back into the fold has been to iso-late Taiwan diplomatically. In the 1950s, most of Latin America had diplomatic relations
with Tai-wan. Then, Cuba's Fidel Castro regime established ties with China in 1960. In the 1970s, Chile led a major shift in favor of the PRC. Currently, only 25
countries accord Taiwan diplomatic status, and one-fourth of them are in Latin America: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicara-gua, Panama, and
Paraguay. Taiwan pays dearly for this recognition, providing development aid and disaster assistance to these states. Frequent Flyers Science, sports, and military
exchanges character-ized Chinese-Latin American relations in the 1980s. Economic relations did not develop significantly until after 1990. A year after China
repressed dissidents in Tiananmen Square, President Yang Shangkun visited Latin America. His trip heralded the beginning of an increasing number of high-level
missions to lay the foundation for what he described as "a new interna-tional political and economic order."[4] The pace picked up at the turn of the century. In
April 2001, Chinese President Jiang Zemin pre-sided over a 12-day mission to cement economic and trade ties, as well as attack what he called Washington's
"unipolar" scheme.[5] His itinerary included Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Cuba, and Venezuela. Li Peng, chairman of the Standing Com-mittee of the People's National
Congress, followed up with more visits in November 2001. In Novem-ber 2004, President Hu Jintao flew to Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Cuba, where he signed 39
bilat-eral agreements and announced $100 billion in investments over the next 10 years. In May of this year, Communist Party Chairman Jia Qinglin vis-ited
, China has advanced to economic
assistance, direct investment, a few joint ventures, and military ties. When
Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, and Cuba. Building on simple commercial agreements
Argentina's financial collapse rippled through South America's Southern Cone, China quickly seized the chance to increase its stake in Argentina and Brazil, while
U.S. investment declined by nearly half. Joint ventures include part-nerships with Great Dragon Telecom in Cuba as well as Colombia. China is partnering with Brazil
to improve that country's railways and establish a rail link to the Pacific to cut transportation costs of iron ore and soybeans. Chile's congested port at Antofa-gasta
To meet domestic industrial needs and con-sumer
demand, China has pursued investments and agreements with such oil
producers as Venezu-ela, Ecuador, Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, and even Mexico. The best fit is with Venezuela's authoritar-ian leader Hugo Chávez,
may get a facelift thanks to the PRC.
who directly controls the state oil industry. President Chávez has invited the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) to participate in exploring the rich
Orinoco belt. Meanwhile, the CNPC has invested $300 million in technology to use Venezuela's Orimulsion fuel in Chinese power plants. For now, Venezuela plans to
increase exports to China by 300,000 barrels per day and recently signed an agreement with Colombia to build a pipeline to the port of Tribuga on the Pacific coast,
since supertankers cannot pass through the Pan-ama Canal. An additional proposal with Panama would modify a Panamanian oil pipeline to facili-tate shipping oil to
the Pacific coast. On his 2004 visit to Beijing, President Chávez said shifting exports to China will help end dependency on sales to the United States. In 2003, China
bid on concessions to Ecuador's major oil fields. The same year, the CNPC acquired a stake in the Argentine oil and gas firm Pluspetrol, which operates fields in
northern Argentina and Peru. Although Mexico's constitution prohibits foreign investment in Pemex, a boost in petroleum exports is expected to address Mexico's
trade gap with the PRC. While China has no current profile in Bolivia, a future populist president, such as Evo Morales, could find China's presence ideologically
acceptable in lieu of Western private investment.
On the military front, China has expanded ties
through exchanges. It reportedly has direct military-to-military relations with Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Uruguay. The PRC began
collabo-rating with Brazil on spy satellite technology in 1999, providing rocket launch expertise in exchange
for digital optical technology that would permit high resolution, real-time imaging. Moreover, access to Brazil's space tracking facilities
could give China the ability to attack U.S. satellites with a variety of
tech-nologies currently under development. Perhaps the most fruitful collaboration
has been with dictator Fidel Castro. In 1999, China was reportedly intercepting satellite signals from
facili-ties in eastern Cuba.
In 2000, it obtained access to a base outside of Havana to intercept U.S. tele-phony. In 2001, Russia announced that it
would abandon its extensive electronic espionage center at Lourdes. PRC personnel reportedly now occupy it. A February 2004 agreement cloaks such opera-tions
Radio China Inter-national signals
originate from Cuba, as does inter-ference with U.S. East Coast radio
communications and air traffic control, according to Federal Com-munications Commission complaints.[6] Closer
under the pretext of technical communica-tions cooperation. In fact,
Ties: Boon or Bane? From Latin America's perspective, expanding relations with China might seem like a good idea. It offers the following advantages: ◾Prestige.
Dealing with China, a major world power, elevates a small country into the big leagues of global actors. It supplies respect for those living in the shadow of the
prosperous U.S. colossus. The novelty of frequent high-level Chi-nese visits suggests that American leaders, who visit less often, have ignored the region. ◾Deals
with few requirements. China can bar-gain on the spot without a lot of caveats. Its transactions are based on simple exchanges. Their leaders have broad authority
to negotiate foreign deals without worrying about legislative oversight, the rule of law, or altruistic objec-tives. Unlike Western leaders, Chinese leaders represent
state monopolies-which mesh well with Latin American government ownership or management of telecommunications, mining, and energy industries. They do not
need to build up Latin American trade capacity to deal with diverse businesses. ◾Leverage against Uncle Sam. China's expand-ing industries are a temporary boon
to resource-rich Latin America. Exports (mostly commodities) to China have grown by more than 600 percent in five years.[7] Compared with U.S.-Latin America
trade ($410 billion in 2004), China's $40 billion trade with the region might seem inconsequential.[8] However, Chi-nese trade and investment gives Latin politi-cians
closer ties to China
also have signifi-cant disadvantages for both Latin America and the United
States: ◾Growing trade deficits. Latin American lead-ers who sign trade
and investment deals with the PRC have noticed that China's exports are
more affordable than their own goods, which contributes to trade deficits.
and business elites, who largely control commodities, a bargaining chip when dealing with the United States. However,
Chinese goods are made by laborers who work for one-third of the wages of Latin American counterparts and who tolerate worse working conditions. Officials in
Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico have signaled their unease about trade with such a hot com-petitor. In September 2005, Mexican President Vicente Fox made it clear
to visiting President Hu Jintao that dumping electronics and cloth-ing was unacceptable. For every dollar that Mexico makes from exports to China, the PRC makes
$31 from exports to Mexico.[9] ◾
Disinterest in economic reform. Some ana-lysts believe that
the commodities-based trade model used by China will undermine the
progress that Latin America has made toward industrialization. While countries like Chile
and Brazil have moved beyond raw materials exports, others with powerful presidents or rul-ing oligarchies may be tempted to fall back on plantation economics.
Income gaps between the rich and poor may widen as a result. More-over, such narrowly focused economies are vul-nerable to downturns in commodity prices.
Some 44 percent of Latin Americans already live below the poverty line. If these countries fail to adopt reforms, social inequality and political instability could
depress U.S. exports to the region and increase migration problems. ◾
Scramble for resources. To obtain
commodi-ties, China offers tempting investments in infra-structure. In contrast, the
United States cannot offer direct tie-ins to state industries and can only offer development aid, now in decreasing amounts . Chinese
competition may make Mil-lennium Challenge Account (MCA) money a less
effective incentive to democratize govern-ments and liberalize markets. The
one-to-two year lead time from proposal to disbursement of MCA aid gives volatile governments a chance to back away from market-oriented perfor-mance
requirements. ◾Evasion of American-style bottleneck diplo-macy. China's flexibility counters more rigid U.S. approaches. Obtaining any kind of assistance from the
United States requires compliance on a battery of restrictions, including observing human rights, protecting the environment, prom-ising not to send U.S. military
personnel to the International Criminal Court (ICC),[10] not assist-ing current or former terrorists, and not using U.S.-provided equipment for any other than its
stated purpose. American commitments also depend on legislative approval and can be reversed if the mood in the U.S. Congress shifts. ◾Prying eyes on America.
From electronic espi-onage facilities in Cuba to port facilities run by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-Shing's Hutchi-son-Whampoa conglomerate in Panama, China has an
eye trained on the United States. U.S. intelligence agencies are aware of this, but Washington's penchant for focusing on one threat at a time, such as the war on
The United States and
China have competing inter-ests in Latin America. Washington would like
to see its hemispheric neighbors develop into stable, demo-cratic,
prosperous trade partners that embrace the rule of law. Beijing sees the
region as a source of raw materials, a market for manufactured goods, and
a platform for power projection. U.S. interests probably coincide more with
Latin American needs. In con-trast, China represents an opportunity to temper American dominance with broader alliances. Regrettably,
terrorism, could leave America vulnerable to Chinese industrial and military espionage. What the U.S. Should Do
Chinese aid and commodity imports may buy time for state industries, powerful presi-dents, and influential oligarchs. Most of all, such commerce could delay
needed reforms and indus-trialization that might lift Latin America's near majority underclass out of poverty. America's strength is competition, and it should
influence the rules of the game in that direction. As a good neighbor and in its own and Latin America's interests, the United States should: ◾Accelerate free trade
agreements. Free trade agreements have been the hallmark of U.S. pol-icies toward the region since the 1990s. As an inducement, America should drop its
agricul-tural and steel subsidies that dissuade potential partners and cost taxpayers money. Improved U.S. trade relations with Andean neighbors (and eventually
Southern Cone countries) will open market access for both U.S. and Latin American enterprises and provide an outlet for industrial growth. ◾Adopt more
comprehensive relationships. Single-issue diplomacy that emphasizes U.S. interests, such as counternarcotics, leaves vacu-ums in other areas such as security
assistance and trade capacity development that other powers can fill. Plan Colombia is working because the United States is helping Colombia to combat terrorism,
expand public safety zones, strengthen institutions, reactivate the economy, and promote rural peace.[11] ◾Cut red tape on assistance. This policy should be
followed to the greatest extent possible. Per-formance requirements are blunt instruments that do not cover every situation. Constraints such as annual
certifications on counternarcot-ics cooperation and Article 98 letters that with-hold security assistance occasionally backfire by withdrawing support for allies in
areas of mutual interest. If Congress considers such restrictions absolutely necessary, it should tai-lor them to suspend only economic aid that is not crucial to
immediate U.S. interests. ◾Press harder for reforms and use public diplomacy. Once Latin America had elected leaders and fledgling markets in the 1990s, U.S.
support for democracy and economic reforms declined. Although each country is responsible for solving its own problems, exter-nal pressure can encourage
progress. U.S. pub-lic diplomacy, which is mostly reactive toward Latin America, should be strengthened and more supportive of U.S. development goals. Conclusion
The United States has become the greatest power in the world based on its
tradition of free choice. Choice goes hand-in-hand with competition,
because these keep markets vibrant and govern-ments accountable. In a globalized
world, democ-racies have relations with whom they wish and nation-competitors such as China cannot be blocked from visiting the Western Hemisphere. However,
the United States can best look after its regional interests by cultivating closer political and security
ties with neighbors, advancing free trade, and encouraging respect for the rule of law and lib-eral
economic principles among all players- including China.
Effective engagement is key to reaffirm US influence in Latin America--only a perception of
renewed commitment will counter the presence of China and other rising powers
Sabatini and Berger 12, Christopher Sabatini is editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly and senior director
of policy at Americas Society/Council of the Americas. Ryan Berger is a policy associate at the Americas
Society/Council of the Americas(Christopher/Ryan, "Why the U.S. can't afford to ignore Latin America"
6/13/12, CNN/Global Public Square, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/13/why-the-u-scant-afford-to-ignore-latin-america/)//AD
Speaking in Santiago, Chile, in March of last year, President Obama called Latin America “a region on
the move,” one that is “more important to the prosperity and security of the
United States than ever before.” Somebody forgot to tell the Washington brain trust. The
Center for a New American Security, a respected national security think tank a half-mile from the White House, recently released a new series of policy
recommendations for the next presidential administration. The 70-page “grand strategy” report only contained a short paragraph on Brazil and made only one
The relative calm south of the United States seems
to pale in comparison to other developments in the world: China on a
seemingly inevitable path to becoming a global economic powerhouse, the
potential of political change in the Middle East, the feared dismemberment
of the eurozone, and rogue states like Iran and North Korea flaunting
international norms and regional stability. But the need to shore up our allies and
passing reference to Latin America. Yes, we get it.
recognize legitimate threats south of the Rio Grande goes to the heart of the U.S.’ changing role in
the world and its strategic interests within it.
Here are three reasons why the U.S. must include Latin America in its strategic
pursuing a global foreign policy requires regional allies.
Recently, countries with emerging economies have appeared to be taking
positions diametrically opposed to the U.S. when it comes to matters of
global governance and human rights. Take, for example, Russia and China’s
calculations: 1. Today,
stance on Syria, rejecting calls for intervention. Another one of the BRICS, Brazil, tried to stave off the
tightening of U.N. sanctions on Iran two years ago. And last year, Brazil also voiced its official opposition
to intervention in Libya, leading political scientist Randall Schweller to refer to Brazil as “a rising spoiler.”
At a time of (perceived) declining U.S. influence, it’s important that America deepens its ties with
regional allies that might have been once taken for granted.
As emerging nations such as Brazil clamor for permanent seats on
the U.S. will
need to integrate them into global decision-making rather than isolate
them. If not, they could be a thorn in the side of the U.S. as it tries to
the U.N. Security Council and more representatives in the higher reaches of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund,
implement its foreign policy agenda. Worse, they could threaten to undermine efforts to defend international norms and
human rights. 2. Latin America is becoming more international. It’s time to understand that the U.S. isn’t the
only country that has clout in Latin America. For far too long, U.S. officials and Latin
America experts have tended to treat the region as separate, politically and
strategically, from the rest of the world. But as they’ve fought battles over small countries such as Cuba and Honduras
and narrow bore issues such as the U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement, other countries like China and India have
increased their economic presence and political influence in the region. It’s also
clear that countries such as Brazil and Venezuela present their own challenges to U.S. influence in the region and even on the world forum. The U.S.
must embed its Latin America relations in the conceptual framework and
strategy that it has for the rest of the world, rather than just focus on
human rights and development as it often does toward southern neighbors
such as Cuba. 3. There are security and strategic risks in the region. Hugo Chavez’s systematic deconstruction of the Venezuelan state and alleged
ties between FARC rebels and some of Chavez’s senior officials have created a volatile cocktail that could explode south of the U.S. border. FARC, a left-wing
guerrilla group based in Colombia, has been designated as a “significant foreign narcotics trafficker” by the U.S. government. At the same time, gangs, narcotics
traffickers and transnational criminal syndicates are overrunning Central America. In 2006, Mexican President Felipe Calderón launched a controversial “war on
drugs” that has since resulted in the loss of over 50,000 lives and increased the levels of violence and corruption south of the Mexican border in Guatemala, El
Salvador, Honduras and even once-peaceful Costa Rica. Increasingly, these already-weak states are finding themselves overwhelmed by the corruption and violence
that has come with the use of their territory as a transit point for drugs heading north. Given their proximity and close historical and political connections with
Washington, the U.S. will find it increasingly difficult not to be drawn in. Only this case, it won’t be with or against governments — as it was in the 1980s — but in
the far more complex, sticky situation of failed states. There are many other reasons why Latin America is important to U.S. interests. It is a market for more than
20% of U.S. exports. With the notable exception of Cuba, it is nearly entirely governed by democratically elected governments — a point that gets repeated ad
nauseum at every possible regional meeting. The Western Hemisphere is a major source of energy that has the highest potential to seriously reduce dependence on
Middle East supply. And through immigration, Latin America has close personal and cultural ties to the United States. These have been boilerplate talking points
But the demands of the globe today are different, and they
warrant a renewed engagement with Latin America — a strategic pivot point
for initiatives the U.S. wants to accomplish elsewhere. We need to stop
thinking of Latin America as the U.S. “backyard” that is outside broader,
global strategic concerns.
since the early 1990s.
LINK-US ENGAGEMENT SOLVES-EMBARGO
Lifting the embargo is the first step in reestablishing US relations in the region--reverses antiAmerican sentiments and boosts credibility
Goodman 09, Joshua Goodman is a reporter for Bloomberg News, who is stationed in Rio de Janeiro,
covering Latin America. He is a policy analyst covering regional economics and politics. Goodman has
spent more than a decade covering Latin America, formerly contributing to Business Week, tracking the
drug war and Argentina's 2001 financial collapse(Joshua, "Latin America to Push Obama on Cuba
Embargo at Summit," 4/13/09, Bloomberg News,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid= a0_zyWMi297I&refer=uk)//AD
Cuba will be at the heart of
the U.S. relationship with the rest of the hemisphere, exactly as it has been
April 13 (Bloomberg) -- When Barack Obama arrives at the fifth Summit of the Americas this week,
for half a century. While Latin American leaders split on many issues, they
agree that Obama should lift the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba. From
Venezuelan socialist Hugo Chavez to Mexico’s pro-business Felipe Calderon,
leaders view a change in policy toward Cuba as a
starting point for reviving U.S. relations with the region, which are at their lowest point in two
decades . Obama, born six months before President John F. Kennedy imposed the embargo, isn’t prepared to support ending it. Instead, he’ll seek to satisfy
the leaders at the April 17-19 summit in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, with less ambitious steps disclosed by the administration today -- repealing restrictions
on family visits and remittances imposed by former President George W. Bush. That would mesh with his stated goal of
of “U.S. arrogance”
that he attributed to his predecessor in his sole policy speech on the region last May.
changing the perception
“All of Latin America
and the Caribbean are awaiting a change in policy toward Cuba,” Jose Miguel Insulza,
Secretary General of the Washington-based Organization of American States, said in an interview. “They value what Obama has
promised, but they want more.” The policy changes unveiled today also include an expanded list of items that can be shipped
to the island, and a plan to allow U.S. telecommunications companies to apply for licenses in Cuba. Symbolically Important Cuba, the only country in the
hemisphere excluded from the 34-nation summit, is symbolically important to the region’s leaders, many of whom entered politics under military regimes and
Even though most countries shun
the communist policies of Castro and his brother, now-President Raul Castro,
the U.S. alone in the hemisphere rejects diplomatic and trade relations with
the island. “Cuba represents a 50-year policy failure in Latin America and
that’s why it’s so important for Obama to address it now,” says Wayne Smith, a senior fellow at the
looked to Cuba and its longtime leader Fidel Castro, 82, for inspiration and support.
Center for International Policy in Washington, who headed the State Department’s Cuba interest section in Havana from 1979-1982. “Unless Obama wants to be
he better come with fresh ideas.”
booed off the stage,
The U.S. president, 47, thinks it would be “unfortunate” if Cuba is the
principal theme at the summit and would prefer the session focus instead on the economy, poverty and the environment, says Jeffrey Davidow, the White House’s
he can’t control the discussion and intends to
deal with the other leaders as partners, Davidow told reporters on April 6. Past Protests That should be enough to
top adviser for the meeting. Obama also understands that
avoid a repeat of the circus atmosphere surrounding the previous summit, held in 2005 in Argentina, when 30,000 protesters led by Chavez and Argentine soccer
legend Diego Maradona burned an effigy of Bush. Obama will also benefit from the U.S.’s decision to take off the table its earlier proposal for a free-trade area
spanning the Americas, an issue that divided countries at the four previous summits starting in 1994. Still, Obama’s meeting with Chavez, who last month called the
U.S. president an “ignoramus” when it comes to Latin America, has the potential to generate a few sparks. To defuse the tension, Obama may say the U.S. is
seeking good relations with governments across the political spectrum, says Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research
group. Chavez, 54, joined Bolivian President Evo Morales, an ally, in expelling the U.S. ambassadors to their countries in September for alleged interference in
U.S. influence
in Latin America waned under Bush as the war on terror diverted attention
to the Middle East while the region expanded economic and diplomatic ties
with Russia, China and other outside-the-hemisphere powers. In December, Brazil hosted
domestic politics. ‘Unpredictable’ Chavez “The main concern at this point for the U.S. is the unpredictability of Chavez,” Hakim says.
the first-ever, region-wide summit of Latin American and Caribbean nations that excluded the U.S. The summit reinforced other initiatives such as the Union of
the “minor step” of
easing travel restrictions to Cuba, a campaign pledge Obama made almost a year ago, may not satisfy
the region’s increasingly assertive leaders, Julia Sweig, director of the Latin America program at the Council on
South American Nations, which was formed by 12 countries to mediate regional conflicts, bypassing the OAS. Taking
Foreign Relations, said in an interview from Washington. ‘A Lot on the Table’ “The Cubans are putting a lot on the table,” says Sweig, the author of two books on
Cuba, including the forthcoming “Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know.” “The U.S. should test their intentions.” From Havana to the halls of Congress, momentum
for a detente is building. Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, urged Obama last month to begin direct talks
with the Cuban government and end U.S. opposition to its membership in the OAS. Other bills would lift travel restrictions for all U.S. citizens. Last week, the Cuban
American National Foundation, the leading organization for Cuban exiles, which is headed by a veteran of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, urged a “new direction” in
policy toward Cuba and expressed backing for several of Obama’s proposals. U.S. public opinion favors normalizing relations 59 percent to 29 percent, according to
a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll taken Jan. 27-28. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points. Meeting With Fidel Fidel Castro last week met with
seven U.S. lawmakers and in a column published on the Internet said Cuba “doesn’t fear dialogue with the U.S.” Manuel Marrero Faz, senior oil adviser at the
Ministry of Basic Industries, said in an interview this month that U.S. oil companies, expropriated on the island in 1960, would be welcomed back to drill if the
embargo ends. Obama said in May he’s taking his cues from predecessor Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor” policy, announced in 1933, temporarily
ended a long history of U.S. armed intervention in Latin America and ushered in an era of unprecedented hemispheric prosperity. For his effort, Roosevelt was
praised in a 1936 calypso, “FDR in Trinidad,” commemorating his stopover in the Caribbean island during a 28-day cruise to Latin America. Obama, who has yet to
set foot in the region, is already the subject of 20 steel-drum tunes, says Ray Funk, a calypso expert in Fairbanks, Alaska. The most widely played, Funk says, is one
called “Barack the Magnificent.”
AT: NOT ZERO SUM
Increasing Russo-Chinese influence trades off with US--they are actively pursuing policies to
undermine US credibility
Cohen 13, Senior Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy at
The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and the Douglas and Sarah
Allison Center for Policy Studies. He is an expert on economic and political policies in former Soviet
republics. Cohen is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, International Institute of Strategic
Studies in London, and Association for the Study of Nationalities. He also writes for the Heritage
Foundation(Ariel, "The Russia-China Axis Grows" 3/14/13, Frontpage Mag,
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ariel-cohen/the-russia-china-alliance-grows/)//AD
China’s new president Xi Jinping will make his first official foreign visit later this month. He will visit Russia, in a
trip Chinese sources say “will improve relations and cement strategic partnership.” Washington
should pay attention to the strengthening ties between Moscow and Beijing. These giant neighbors have the longest
shared land border in the world, and trade between the two nations is
booming–at around $90 billion annually. Washington needs to do everything possible to prevent the
emergence of a new Eurasian anti-American axis. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian and Chinese
bilateral relations have vastly improved. Currently,
“hegemony,”
both countries would like to displace what they call U.S.
especially along their borders. Russia has repeatedly demanded that the U.S. pull out of the Manas air force base in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
Moreover, it insists the U.S. ask for Moscow’s approval before deploying any forces in Central Asia – even when they are needed to fight Islamist terrorism. China
Russia’s assertive foreign policy, with its
anti-American propaganda overtones, seeks to establish a Russian “pole” in
the global world order. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said that Xi’s “upcoming visit is
expected to add new impetus to the further development of the ChinaRussia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination.” Translated from Chinese
would like to keep the U.S. naval presence in Western Pacific in check.
diplomatese, this means, “It is really, really important, but we won’t tell you what they are going to talk about.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov echoed his
Chinese colleague’s sentiment: Russia and China have united positions, and promote these united positions in negotiations, on the situation in the Middle East and
North Africa, including the Syrian crisis, Afghanistan, the Iranian nuclear program and other crises…. On all these cases, we and our Chinese friends are led by one
and the same principle — the necessity to observe international law, respect UN procedures and not allow interference from outside in domestic conflicts and all
the more the use of force. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which Moscow and Beijing founded, aims to fight “the three evils: separatism, extremism, and
terrorism.” There are enough secessionist areas to go around: Chechnya, Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan. Both countries want international support to keep their separatists
Sino–Russian cooperation is not just geopolitical but also ideological.
Russia and China want to halt the spread of liberal democracy. This means
keeping the U.S. out of their internal affairs, as well as those of regimes
friendly to them. They believe that any government has a right to crack down on internal dissent or censure the press, including the Internet.
in check.
With these principles in mind, they have worked in concert to check U.S. efforts in the Middle East and protect their own interests, such as legitimizing authoritarian
regimes. They vetoed and stifled sanctions and internationally supported peace plans for Syria. They enabled Iran to continue its nuclear program by refusing to
China, which is the principal supporter of North Korea, condemns
even the possibility of military action against Pyongyang—and so does
Russia. They increasingly present an alternative to Western-style democracy and are two stalwarts of the anti-US front, which also includes Iran and
Venezuela. Russia and China are expanding their economic ties. The two
tighten sanctions.
countries have already moved to trade with each other using their own
currencies—thus excluding the dollar. Moscow and Beijing have promised to increase trade
dramatically over the next decade, and they are working on finalizing a deal on the most important sector of their bilateral
trade: energy. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich is conducting negotiations in China on a natural gas deal, saying that a “significant
breakthrough” has been made over the past few months. This gas pipeline will connect Russia’s abundant gas reserves with China’s ever-growing need for energy.
The United States should work to prevent the Beijing-Moscow axis from taking root. After all, this was the main effort of the Nixon-Kissinger effort 40 years ago.
China is making inroads in the Middle East and East Asia—two regions that remain pivotal to U.S. interests. China is using soft power to expand its influence along
the Indian Ocean rim and in Africa. Chinese state-owned businesses are investing heavily in Afghan natural resources, and Beijing wields a great deal of influence in
Pakistan. Russia is executing its own “pivot to Asia”—something Moscow highlighted when hosting the 24th APEC summit in Vladivostok last fall. Like China, Russia
also has an island dispute of its own with Japan over the Kuril Islands. As Beijing takes a hard line with its quarrel, the two could join forces to exert pressure on
Japan and lend international credibility to each other’s territorial claims. Yet Russia is pursuing a rapprochement with Japan, Korea and Vietnam, indicating that it
A China-Russia partnership is championing a selective
commitment to “noninterference in internal affairs.” which plays well with
the other authoritarian regimes around the world. They seek arms
contracts and economic ties while looking the other way on nations’ human
rights abuses. However, as China continues to expand its sphere of influence
through military, economic, smart, and soft power, Russia may become its
junior partner in international affairs. China’s rapid economic rise, including in Central Asia, and Beijing’s desire for an
may be weary of the rising giant of China.
enhanced global position could spell trouble for the Sino-Russian relationship down the road. Russia’s economy is lagging behind China, and Moscow could easily
turn into a natural resource appendage for Beijing. Further, densely populated Chinese provinces border the sparsely populated Russian Far East, provoking fear in
Russia blames the U.S. for its “time
of troubles” in the 1990s, when a weak and corrupt central government
presided over the economic slump and inflation. Moreover, Moscow is
increasingly rejecting “Western values” such as same-sex marriages. Nostalgic for the empire gone, Russian
post-Soviet elites blame the U.S. for “orange revolutions” such as in Georgia
(2003) and Ukraine (2004), and meddling into its “near abroad,” including NATO
Moscow that Chinese immigrants will come to dominate a large part of Siberia. Today,
enlargement. Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, while supported by Russia, troubled Moscow and Beijing. China sees the “pivot to Asia” as containment
mutual geopolitical and economic interests are drawing Russia and
China together into a partnership of convenience. Xi’s first visit sends the clear message that China
seeks to cement closer ties with its neighbors—and not with the U.S. Henry Kissinger’s
policy. For now,
postulate that a Russia-China axis is not in U.S. national security interests still stands.
Washington should plan its policy accordingly.
INTERNAL LINK-US ENGAGEMENT KEY-GENERIC
US influence key to create a framework for future cooperation in Latin America--supports the
regional institutions critical in stopping nuclear proliferation, bolstering climate adaptation
efforts, increasing investment and stopping illegal immigration
Zedillo and Pickering et al 08, Ernesto Zedillo is the former President of Mexico and Commission co-chair of the Americas Commission for The
Brookings Institution. Mauricio Cardenas is the Director of the Americas Commission for The Brookings Institution. Thomas R. Pickering Commission co-chair;
Former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Leonardo Martinez-Diaz Deputy Director of the Commission; Political economy Fellow, Global economy and
Development, Brookings Nancy Birdsall President; Center for Global Development Jonathan Coles; Former Minister of Agriculture of Venezuela Roberto Dañino;
Former Prime Minister of Peru Jeffrey Davidow; President, institute of the Americas John Deutch; Former Deputy Secretary of Defense and Director, Central
intelligence Agency Peter Hakim; President, inter-American Dialogue Alberto Ibargüen; President and Ceo, Knight Foundation Suzanne Nora Johnson; Senior
Director and Former Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Celso Lafer; Former Foreign Minister of brazil Ricardo Lagos; Former President of Chile Carlos Ivan Simonsen
Leal; President, Fundação Getulio Vargas, brazil Thomas “Mack” McLarty; Former U.S. envoy to the Americas Billie Miller; Former Deputy Prime Minister and
Foreign Minister of barbados Moisés Naím; editor in Chief, Foreign Policy Magazine Jorge Quiroga; Former President of Bolivia Thomas Ramey; Chairman and
President, Liberty international Eduardo Stein; Former Vice President of Guatemala Strobe Talbott; President, The Brookings Institution(Ernesto/Mauricio,
"Rethinking U.S.–Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World," November 2008, The Brookings Institution,
of Latin America and the Caribbean
(LAC) rarely grab newspaper headlines in the United States. Yet the LAC region has a very significant impact on the daily
lives of those who live in the United States. More than 30 percent of U.S. oil
imports come from Latin America—more than from any other region, including the Middle East. Over half of
the U.S. foreign-born population is from the LAC region. These immigrants and their offspring
make up a large and growing part of the U.S. labor force, and they are fast becoming an integral part of American society,
politics, and culture. When economic or natural disasters strike the LAC
region, the United States is often the first port of call for emigrants and
refugees. The LAC countries buy a fifth of all the United States’ exports and
supply a fifth of its imports. Finally, the United States and most of the LAC countries share
fundamental values and ideals—including a belief in democracy, a market
economy, secular government, and civil and human rights. The advent of a new administration
In comparison with the nations of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, the countries
in Washington opens the door to a fresh look at this
increasingly interdependent relationship . This report is also particularly timely in the
context of the current financial crisis, which is having profound regional as well as global implications. The events of recent months have demonstrated that the
developments in U.S. financial markets are
rapidly reflected in the LAC region. Stock prices across the region have declined, currencies have weakened, and the cost
Western Hemisphere’s countries remain interdependent;
of funds for governments and corporations has increased. The real economy has suffered as well, and growth forecasts for the region have been revised downward,
especially for those countries that rely more heavily on trade and remittance flows from the United States, such as Mexico and the Central American and Caribbean
nations. In response, the United States has approved $30 billion in currency swaps for each Mexico and Brazil to help them stabilize their currencies and meet
immediate debt obligations, and the International Monetary Fund has nearly doubled its limit on loans to developing countries. Most observers believe that the
countries of the LAC region are better prepared to weather the current global financial crisis than past episodes of financial turmoil. The region’s current account
deficit is small, inflation is under control in most economies, and fiscal conditions have generally improved. The region has also benefited from high commodity
the region is not immune
from the crisis. Its countries could suffer from a sharp decline in
commodity prices, as well as from a reduction in capital flows from
advanced economies. Also, leading international banks—which have a strong presence in the region and are key players in financial
intermediation—could act as transmission lines for external shocks. As the crisis unfolds, Latin America
remains important to the United States in at least two respects. If the LAC region grows at
rates of more than 3 percent a year—as the International Monetary Fund currently projects—even in a weak global economy, its countries will
play a valuable role as buyers of U.S. goods and services, helping the U.S.
economy export its way out of the crisis. Conversely, if the region’s economy
deteriorates further, the problems associated with poverty, crime,
inequality, and migration may worsen and could potentially spill across
borders. For the United States, coping with the hemispheric impact of the financial crisis will be a major policy
challenge with economic as well as political and security implications. The Need for
prices and large capital inflows. Several countries have amassed sizable international reserves. But
a Hemispheric Partnership Historically, the United States and Latin America have rarely developed a genuine and sustained partnership to address regional—let
The United
States had other preoccupations and did not make hemispheric partnership
a priority. Problems and solutions were seen from Washington as country-specific and were managed mostly on a country-by- country basis through
bilateral channels. Meanwhile, multilateral forums—such as the Organization of American States and the summits of hemispheric leaders —
ran out of steam, became mired in confrontation, or remained
underresourced. If a hemispheric partnership remains elusive, the costs to the United States and its neighbors will be high, in terms of both
alone global—challenges. Mutual distrust is partly to blame. Also, the LAC countries were often not ready to make stable commitments.
Without a partnership, the risk that criminal networks
pose to the region’s people and institutions will continue to grow. Peaceful nuclear
technology may be adopted more widely, but without proper safeguards, the risks of nuclear proliferation will
increase. Adaptation to climate change will take place through isolated,
improvised measures by individual countries, rather than through more
effective efforts based on mutual learning and coordination. Illegal immigration to the United
States will continue unabated and unregulated, adding to an ever-larger
underclass that lives and works at the margins of the law. Finally, the countries
around the hemisphere, including the United States, will lose valuable
opportunities to tap new markets, make new investments, and access
valuable resources. It is important to note at the outset that the term “partnership” as used in this report does not mean equal responsibility
growing risks and missed opportunities.
for all. The asymmetries between the United States and its neighbors are large and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Partnership here means a type of
international cooperation whereby a group of countries identifies common interests, objectives, and solutions, and then each partner country undertakes
responsibilities according to its own economic and political capacities to generate shared benefits. Today, four changes in the region have made a hemispheric
the key challenges faced by the United States and the
hemisphere’s other countries— such as securing sustainable energy
supplies, combating and adapting to climate change, and combating
organized crime and drug trafficking—have become so complex and deeply
transnational that they cannot be managed or overcome by any single
country. Washington needs partners in the LAC region with a shared sense
of responsibility and a common stake in the future. For example, drug trafficking and its associated
partnership both possible and necessary. First,
criminal networks have now spread so widely across the hemisphere that they can no longer be regarded as a “U.S. problem,” a “Colombian problem,” or a
“Mexican problem.” The threat posed by these networks can only be countered through coordinated efforts across producing, consuming, and transshipment
countries, all of which have a shared interest in controlling the flow of arms, money, vehicles, and drugs. The process of combating and adapting to climate change
also exemplifies the need for a hemispheric partnership. All carbon-emitting societies contribute to the problem to different degrees, and all will experience its
solutions—ranging from developing alternative fuels to adapting to ecological shocks—all require sustained
cooperation among the hemisphere’s countries. The second change is that the LAC countries are
consequences. The
diversifying their international economic relations. Their range of trading and investment partners is expanding, with China in particular playing a prominent role in
the region. Chinese imports from the LAC countries increased twentyfold between 1990 and 2005, while Chinese exports to the region grew even faster, from $620
million in 1990 to $37 billion in 2005. Latin America is also attracting significant foreign investment from nontraditional sources. Between just 2003 and 2005, the
stock of Chinese foreign direct investment in the LAC region increased by 40 percent. China has become a key buyer of commodities, driving up prices and reversing
the long-term decline in the region’s terms of trade . Meanwhile, the Caribbean countries have recently signed an Economic Partnership Agreement with the
European partnership for the americas commission Union, immediately opening all European markets and gradually opening Caribbean ones. With more valuable
exports and less expensive manufactured imports, living standards in the LAC region have improved significantly. At the same time, many LAC countries have moved
beyond their traditional reliance on resources from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank. Chile, Mexico,
Peru, and Brazil now enjoy investment-grade status from credit-rating agencies and in recent years have been able to raise capital readily in international markets.
The same is true of several other countries, including Colombia, El Salvador, Panama, and Uruguay, which until the recent financial crisis enjoyed ready access to
private international capital. Regionally owned institutions, such as the Andean Development Corporation and the Central American Bank for Economic Integration,
have also reduced the region’s dependence on traditional sources of capital. Some Latin American countries are investing abroad on an unprecedented scale. In
2006, for example, Brazil invested more abroad ($28 billion) than it received in foreign direct investment ($19 billion). In Chile, private pension funds and the
government have become active international investors. Surpluses have allowed Venezuela to inject billions of dollars into other countries, particularly through
subsidized oil exports. Many Latin American multinationals—such as Brazil’s Vale, Gerdau, and Odebrecht; and Mexico’s CEMEX, America Movil, and Grupo
FEMSA—have become global corporate giants. The current crisis may no doubt affect the relative magnitude of these investments, but economic relationships in
the hemisphere will continue to diversify as the world economy recovers. The third change is that the LAC countries are diversifying their political and diplomatic
relations. The most notable example is Brazil, which has opened thirty-two new embassies in the past five years. Together with Venezuela, Brazil is playing a more
active political role in the region through the Union of South American Nations, which is already active at the presidential level and is expected to become a key
forum for the discussion of defense issues. Mexico and Brazil are also playing prominent roles in international forums and organizations, including the finance
ministers’ Group of Twenty and the trade ministers’ Group of Twenty. Brazil has announced its intention to join the Organization of the Petroleum-Exporting
Countries and the Paris Club. Chile and Brazil are expected to become members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the nottoo-distant future. Mexico, Peru, and Chile are active members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. In sum, this diversification of political and economic
relations reflects many LAC countries’ new confidence in their capacity to chart their own course in the world. Their enhanced confidence and autonomy will make
many LAC countries much less responsive to U.S. policies that are perceived as patronizing, intrusive, or prescriptive, and they will be more responsive to policies
that engage them as partners on issues of mutual concern. Also, the LAC countries’ diversification of economic and political relations means that
Washington will have to compete with governments both outside and within the region for regional
influence . In particular, Brasília and Caracas are both vying for leadership in South America; and though they may have different visions for regional
integration and different ways to approach other governments, they agree that Washington should play a more limited role in their part of the world. The fourth
change is that, today, the LAC countries are better positioned to act as reliable partners. Despite remaining governance challenges, the vast majority of these
countries are stable democracies for which competitive elections and peaceful transitions of power are the norm, not the exception. Throughout these countries,
civil society groups now participate extensively in the policymaking process, and there is much less tolerance of violence as a means of political expression.
Economic progress has also made the LAC countries more reliable partners.
Leaders, including some on the left, are committed to fiscal responsibility. Most central banks are now independent bodies focused on inflation control. Exchange
many LAC countries can now look beyond their
borders and commit to sustained partnerships and responsibilities on
regional and global issues. In sum, the countries of the LAC region have made significant strides in economic and social development
rates largely reflect market forces. As a result,
and will continue to prosper even if U.S. leaders remain disengaged.
Washington must decide whether it wants to actively
reengage and benefit from the region’s dynamism and resources or be sidelined as other economic
and political actors fill the void left by its absence . A Window of Opportunity A valuable window of opportunity soon will open for
the U.S. government to rethink its relations with and policies toward the LAC countries. In 2009, a new U.S. administration and Congress will take charge in
Washington, opening the door to fresh thinking and new policies. And in many LAC countries, the bicentennial celebrations in 2009 and 2010—marking the
beginning of their revolutions that led to independence from Spain—will be a highly symbolic moment, one that will stimulate introspection and debate about their
role in the world. In Brazil, 2008 marks two centuries since the Portuguese monarchy transferred its seat to Brazil, and this historic date has stimulated reflection regarding the
special nature of its independence in the Latin American context. This report does not advance a single, grand scheme for reinventing hemispheric relations. Instead, the report’s analyses are
based on two simple propositions: The hemisphere’s countries share common interests; and the United States should engage its hemispheric neighbors on issues where shared interests,
objectives, and solutions are easiest to identify and can serve as the basis for a sustainable partnership. In this spirit, the report offers a series of modest, pragmatic recommendations that, if
implemented, could help the hemisphere’s countries manage key transnational challenges and realize the region’s potential. The concept of a hemispheric partnership holds most promise in
four areas: (1) developing sustainable energy sources and mitigating climate change, (2) managing migration effectively, (3) expanding opportunities for all through economic integration, and
(4) protecting the hemisphere from drug trafficking and organized crime. The next four sections of this report offer an analysis of each area and provide concrete recommendations for U.S.
policymakers. The last section of the report addresses U.S. relations with Cuba. This issue is of a smaller order of magnitude than the issues of energy, migration, trade, and organized crime.
But because Cuba has long been a subject of intense interest in U.S. foreign policy and a stumbling block for U.S. relations with the hemisphere’s other countries, the members of the
Commission felt it necessary to address the issue here. The Mechanics of Partnership A common theme running through this report is the institutional infrastructure that will be necessary to
sustain hemispheric cooperation. Rather than calling for new international organizations with lumbering bureaucracies, the report recommends that the hemisphere’s countries partner
through lean, nimble networks based on the principle of “variable geometry”—the idea that not every country needs to take part in every policy initiative and discussion, but that some
countries should cooperate more closely on certain issues. For example, the report calls for groups of varied sizes to coordinate policies and exchange information on adapting to climate
change, carbon-emissions controls, migration issues, counternarcotics initiatives, and regional economic integration. At the top of this system might be an “Americas Eight” (A8), an umbrella
grouping of eight heads of state from the hemisphere that would serve as a steering committee for the proposed partnership. Modeled on the Group of Eight, the A8 would set the agendas of
issue-specific networks and encourage consensus building and political agreement at the highest levels of government. Though the question of the A8’s membership will clearly be
controversial, at its core should be those countries with the largest populations and economies in the Americas, including Brazil, Mexico, and the United States, (see figure 1). The concept of
an A8 is not developed further in this report, but it is offered here as a promising vehicle for a hemispheric partnership. Amid all this discussion of partnership, the question of Venezuela
stands out, because engagement with Caracas has proven especially challenging for Washington in recent years. The United States has strong incentives to engage that South American
country, which is a major oil exporter to the United States. Also, Venezuela aspires to play a regional role, and it could thus become an important player promoting peace and security in the
Southern Cone. partnership for the americas commission Ultimately, the United States will be best served by a calibrated, nonconfrontational approach in its relations with Venezuela.
Restoring fluid diplomatic relations should be a goal for both Washington and Caracas, but these relations must be based on two principles: mutual respect and nonintervention in each
other’s internal affairs and those of neighboring countries.
AT: CHINA-CUBA TIES ARE BENEVOLENT
Chinese-Cuban ties bad--the island is turning into a reconnaissance base for Chinese
intelligence officials, gathering data on military, economic and political affairs
Westerman 12, Editor and publisher of International News Analysis, an independent journalist
organization covering social, political and economic development. A member of the National
Organization of Scholars and has been inducted into Phi Alpha Theta, the national honor society in
History, and Phi Sigma Tau, the national honor society in Philosophy. He is a Ph.D. student in Eastern and
Western European history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison(Toby, "China, Cuba and the
espionage alliance against the U.S." 1/10/12, Canada Free Press,
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43802)//AD
China’s intelligence operations are the “core arena” for achieving the
superpower status which the Communist elite in Beijing so passionately desires. Central to its
spy activities is the island of Cuba which is strategically located for the
interception of U.S. military and civilian satellite communications. China’s spy services
also cooperates closely with Havana’s own world-class intelligence services. Inexplicably, the U.S. mass media are ignoring both the existence of the spy base as well
as the Cuban-Chinese alliance which is responsible for it. International News Analysis Today is challenging that media silence in an exclusive interview with
counterintelligence expert Chris Simmons, who explains why
espionage partnership
China needs Cuba
and details the dangers to the United States in
Havana’s
with Beijing. Simmons is a retired Counterintelligence Special Agent with 28 years service in the Army, Army Reserve, and the
Defense Intelligence Agency, and has testified on the subject of Cuban espionage before members of U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. Simmons notes that
China has the largest espionage network in the world with an estimated two
million career staff intelligence officers, making Beijing’s spy services
larger than the intelligence operations of all the other nations in the world
combined. While Americans are well aware of China’s financial might, its espionage activities get relatively little attention. “We are too often distracted
by China’s economic gains. For China, however, espionage and economics are tied hand in
hand, and China has the largest appetite for U.S. secrets in the world,” Simmons
told International News Analysis Today. The members of China’s intelligence services, both its officers and those recruited as agents by those officers, tend to be
ethnic Chinese, Simmons observed. This ethnic orientation of China’s espionage services limits the available avenues of access to American security information.
Cuban penetration of U.S.
society augments Chinese efforts and makes an extremely valuable
contribution to Beijing’s overall espionage effort. Cuba’s human intelligence operations give needed
China’s spy alliance with Cuba, however, assists China in overcoming this potential handicap.
perspective to information China receives both from its own operatives and from electronic spy bases operating in Cuba. “That is why China needs Cuba,” Simmons
The kind of restricted information gathered electronically in Cuba
covers military, economic, and political affairs, and ranges from how
foreign policy is determined to indications of troop and fleet movements to
significant details on important political figures. The value Beijing places upon the information acquired via
stated.
Havana can be seen in the October 2011visit to the island by Gen Guo Boxiong, Vice Chairman of China’s Central Military Commission. Guo’s presence in Cuba
China is in the process
of replacing Cuba’s aging Soviet-era military equipment, purportedly
supplying only “non-lethal” aid. The U.S. prohibits “lethal” assistance to Cuba, and Beijing is risking U.S. sanctions if that
prohibition is known to be violated. The true volume and nature of Chinese military aid to
Cuba is, of course, difficult to assess. General Guo’s trip to Cuba follows a December 2010
military agreement, signed by top ranking PLA General Fu Quanyou, insuring needed military aid to
the Castro regime. Simmons pointed out that China’s electronic intelligence activities on
Cuba are particularly interesting, because China claims they don’t exist.
underscored that China has a special military commitment in addition to a sizable economic investment in Cuba.
“Officially they are not there ,” said Simmons, commenting upon Beijing’s denials that it has electronic spying capabilities in Cuba. The island of
Cuba has been used as an electronic spy base for decades The island of Cuba has been used as an electronic spy base for decades, going back to the Soviet
construction and use of the facility at Lourdes. The construction of the base at Lourdes was hard to miss as the concrete buildings and large antennas appeared on
the Cuban landscape. The Russians pulled out of Lourdes in 2001, much to the relief of many in Washington and the expressed displeasure of Fidel Castro and his
regime. Simmons stated that Moscow scored a propaganda victory in the U.S. media and among the U.S. political establishment with its abandonment of Lourdes.
When
the Russians left Cuba, they also left a well-trained Cuban electronic
intelligence battalion functioning on the island at the base in Bejucal, as well as an understanding with Havana to share intelligence
The reality of the matter, however, was much different than appearances seemed to indicate, Simmons told International News Analysis Today.
information important to Moscow. As a result, Russia saved millions of dollars which had been spent on the Lourdes base, Moscow avoided Congressional censure
and obtained important economic cooperation from the United States, all at the same time still receiving important intelligence information on the U.S. from Cuba.
“It was a win-win situation for the Russians,” Simmons stated. 50-100 Chinese intelligence officers are at Bejucal gathering and interpreting information The base at
Bejucal, however, is still operating. While the Cubans technically run it, some 50-100 Chinese intelligence officers are at Bejucal gathering and interpreting
information, according to Simmons. In sharp contrast to Moscow, there is no political cost to China. “It took us years to find out they [the Communist Chinese] were
operating there. We found out through émigrés, defectors, and travelers to Cuba,” Simmons told INA Today. Unlike the Soviets, China has not constructed a facility
and only with the greatest of difficulty can the Chinese be connected with Cuban electronic spy base activities. In this way, China can plausibly deny both the use of
the base and the transference of information from its Havana embassy to Beijing, Simmons informed INA Today. The Chinese even took pains to cover the expected
increase in radio traffic from the Chinese embassy in Havana to Beijing as the Bejucal base, and smaller bases across the island which are connected with it, became
more active. In anticipation of a greater volume of radio communication activity between Cuba and China, Beijing gradually increased useless or “dummy” radio
traffic with Havana. These “dummy” messages were later replaced, at least in part, with actual intelligence information generated from the Bejucal facility and its
sub-stations as they became an important Chinese information source. As a result, the U.S. has difficulty determining the “spikes” of real intelligence information
within the broadcasts of “dummy” transmissions coming from the Chinese embassy in Havana, Simmons said.
The eye of the Chinese
dragon is upon the United States. We do not know what information is coming from bases that supposedly do not exist, but
Simmons commented on China’s military and commercial investment in Communist Cuba and declared that, “Whatever they [the Chinese] are paying, they are
getting a steal.”
IMPACT-REGIONAL ANTAGONISM
Expansion of Chinese and Russian influence in Latin America empowers leftist groups--sets
the groundwork for final assault on the US mainland
Nyquist 11, Independent journalist and policy analyst. Jeffrey Nyquist is a writer for Financial Sense and
an expert in Chinese and Russian military and foreign policy strategies. He was formerly a Contractor for
the Defense Intelligence Agency(Jeffrey, "A Philosopher's Warning," 2/18/11, Financial Sense,
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/jr-nyquist/a-philosopher-warning)//AD
This week I had the pleasure of interviewing the Brazilian philosopher, and president of the Inter-American Institute, Olavo de Carvalho. During the conversation I
suggested that something is wrong with our thinking today; that we don’t worship in the same way, or obey the rules in the same way, or observe common courtesy
as we once did. “To someone like me,” he began, “who visited this country in the 1980s, and came back to live here in 2005, the changes that the American mind
has undergone in recent decades are really shocking.” Carvalho recommended that I read Tamar Frankel’s book, Trust and Honesty: America's Business Culture at
the Crossroad, which, he explained, “describes the alarming decline of moral standards in the American business world....” According to Frankel's book, the erosion
of trust and honesty has to do with a rising acceptance and justification of fraudulent practices. "What has changed," she writes, "is the attitude towards dishonesty
and breach of trust. Today, there is a greater acceptance and more justification of dishonesty." How did this come about? With the removal of certain barriers to
fraud, temptation has increased. Carvalho has his own insights into the causes of moral and intellectual deterioration in America: “One of the factors that has
brought about this change, with its highly corrosive consequences in the daily lives of Americans, was the fashionable ‘neo-liberalism,' which saw the business world
as a self-regulatory power, able to override morality, religion, and culture and to dictate standards of conduct based on the supposedly miraculous power of market
laws. What made the greatness of America was not just the free market economy, but a synthesis of this with Christian morals and with a culture that included love
of country and family. Separated from these regulating forces, the capitalist economy becomes an engine of self-destruction, which is exactly what is happening
today.” Undoubtedly, there is truth in the assertion that traditional American society has collapsed, being replaced by “the open society,” so named by George
Soros and Karl Popper. According to Carvalho, the open society defines itself as “not recognizing any transcendent values and by leaving everything at the mercy of
economic conveniences – conveniences that are something alleged even to justify the very demolition of the free market and its replacement by the welfare state,
based upon taxation and debt.” In other words, Carvalho is saying that the free market doesn’t make men good. It does not train them to be moral. It does not
bother to defend itself against socialism. Those elements in society that previously instilled moral values are no longer as effective, if they are effective at all. It is
Carvalho’s view that the “open society” concept has been used by the nation’s enemies to destroy “everything that is good and great in this country.” He then
pointed to the Russian geopolitical thinker, Alexander Dugin, and “the emerging Russian-Chinese scheme....” Using a subtle propaganda, noted Carvalho, the “open
society” becomes a pretext for fostering widespread global hatred against the United States. For the “open society” produces moral degradation that is
subsequently blamed on the American way of life, which supposedly demonstrates the special wickedness and decadence of the American people. This leads
directly to a discussion of the evils of American cultural imperialism -- the rallying cry of Russian and Chinese strategists whose goal is the elimination of the United
The Russian-Chinese
influence has been growing more and more in Latin America. The U.S.
Government has missed this because it still sees Russia and China as allies,
in spite of the fact that they are the two largest weapons suppliers to
terrorism around the world. One must remember that the Putin government’s foreign
policy is today guided by the so-called ‘Eurasian’ strategy, invented by Russian philosopher
Alexander Dugin, who proposes that Russia, China, and Islam ally with all the antiAmerican forces in Western Europe, Africa and Latin America, for the
purpose of laying final siege to the United States . This strategy already has strong
military support in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a kind of
eastern version of NATO, which brings together Russia, China, Kazakhstan,
States as a world power. The effectiveness of this approach should not be underestimated. As Carvalho explained, “
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.” I asked Carvalho about recent reports of a deal between Islamic
Iran and communist Venezuela to build a strategic missile base aimed at the
United States. I asked if the Marxists of South America were allied with al Qaeda
and Tehran. “Yes, they are,” he replied. “They are also allied with the ETA, which is a
Basque terrorist organization. There are lots of agents of these
organizations in Hugo Chavez’s entourage. This fact is not unknown to many Latin American governments, but
most of them are committed to remaining silent about it because of the agreements they signed as members of the Sao Paulo Forum, the spearhead of the
the countries working with the terrorists
worldwide for the destruction of the United States. He replied as follows: “ Iran, Syria, North
communist movement in Latin America.” I then asked Carvalho to name
Korea, Cuba, Russia, and especially China are the main ones . In Latin America, Venezuela is the most obvious example, but
Venezuela would be nothing without the support it gets from all the
governments of the Sao Paulo Forum, the leader of which is Brazil.” According to
Carvalho, the Left continues to consolidate its position in Latin America. “It has
been following a strategy explicitly presented in a Chinese communist
congress a few years ago: to take power by means of legal elections and then
erode the democratic system from the inside to prevent the opposition from
ever coming back to power in future elections,” he explained. “This is to say: they win a first match and then
proceed to change the rules of the game. In Brazil this strategy has led to spectacular results. First, the idea was to limit the political field to only two contestants:
. All other forces were dismantled by means of targeted tax audits and corruption charges
which did not even need to be proved, since they destroyed reputations once and for all as soon as they were trumpeted by the media.” Could
America’s traditional ally in South America be under the control of a
totalitarian movement? How could we miss such an astonishing development? “American
radical Left and moderate Left
opinion-makers have a wrong view of Brazil,” said Carvalho, “because the Brazilian government has always acted in a two-faced and camouflaged
way. On the one hand, it has been courting American investors to strengthen the Brazilian economy, but on the other, it has been taking advantage of economic
success in order to consolidate the Leftist sway at home, to make impossible any political opposition which is not that of the moderate left, and to give effective
support to the rise of the Left in neighboring countries, while protecting openly terrorist organizations like the FARC and the Chilean MIR, which thus have ended up
controlling the local criminal organization and getting the monopoly of the drug market in Brazil. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez has also dismantled the opposition, but
using more blatant methods.” Since Brazil harbors the core of the communist movement in Latin America, how is the anti-American campaign progressing?
According to Carvalho the Left is not always able to move forward. “It follows an alternating rhythm,” he explained, “according to whether the important thing at
the moment is to flatter foreign investors or to unify and strengthen the Latin American Left.” “For more than ten years,” Carvalho noted, “I have been warning that
the Worker’s Party [in Brazil] is not an organization like the others; that is, willing to alternate with the opposition in power. The Worker’s Party is a revolutionary
organization committed to reshaping the state and the entire society after its image and likeness, by using, for this purpose, the vilest and most corrupt resources.
Since no one has ever believed any of this, everyone has kindly disarmed himself in the face of this rising party, and now that it controls everything, no one can do
anything against it. Brazil is governed by a single party which has several names. I see no prospect of changing this situation in the short or medium term.” I asked
Carvalho about Chile, which turned away from the Left in its last elections. Of all the countries in South America, what is the secret of Chile’s apparent
conservatism? “The Chilean elite is infinitely more educated and better morally prepared than the Brazilian elite,” he replied. “When things start to move towards
the abyss, the Chileans are able to understand what is happening and change course before disaster occurs. You cannot imagine the intellectual laziness of Brazilian
businessmen, politicians and military people. Even when the situation becomes alarming, they cling to their comfortable and usual beliefs and refuse to inform
themselves on what is really happening. The wealthy classes in Brazil are presumptuous and helpless. They do not know how to resist the subtle game of
blandishments and threats played by the Leftist government that controls them. Not only in Chile but also in Argentina, the elites are much better prepared to face
such a situation.” And what is the most important thing Americans should know about the present political situation in South America? “The most important thing,”
said Carvalho, “is the deep and solid unity of the local Leftist movements across national borders, the unity of the revolutionary strategy that lies behind seeming
and misleading differences of national character. There are no ‘two Lefts’ in Latin America. There is only one Left, which has so much solidarity with itself that it
never loses control of the two faces it employs to fool American observers.” Hearing Carvalho characterize the Brazilian business and political elite as intellectually
lazy, I could not help thinking of the American elite. They have also refused to changed course in the face of approaching disaster. Even as the situation becomes
alarming, they spend more and more money. They court enemies and betray allies. It is true, as well, that they "do not know how to resist the subtle game of
blandishments and threats played by the Leftist" power.
SUGAR ETHANOL ADVANTAGE
GENERAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
Sugar ethanol from Cuba is a key factor is shifting US from fossil fuels and overcoming
domestic problems- solves peak oil
Specht ’13- Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012
(Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, 36 UC Davis L. Rev. 171, April
24 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) CW
In the coming decades the
United States will need to change its energy policy to face two immense challenges:
adjusting to peak oil, and halting the advance of climate change. Liquid biofuels — made from
renewable, biologically-based sources of energy, rather than finite and climate change-inducing fossil
fuels — will be an important component of any strategy to deal with the twin challenges of peak oil and
climate change. While the United States has encouraged the production of biofuels in recent decades, the domestic ethanol
industry, which is almost entirely corn-based, has a number of major flaws, among them its
environmental effects. Other legal scholarship has focused on the environmental problems of the
domestic ethanol industry and on the possibility of importing ethanol from countries with more
environmentally-friendly ethanol production. One possibility that has thus far largely been ignored,
however, is the possibility of the United States importing sugarcane-based ethanol from Cuba. This Article
attempts to close that gap in the legal literature. This Article begins with an overview of the U.S. corn-based ethanol industry and demonstrates
that its growth has been driven to a large degree by domestic politics. The Article then shifts its focus to Cuba, describing the
potential for
that country to develop a sugarcane-based ethanol industry as well as the challenges such an industry will face. The
remainder of this Article discusses the environmental and economic effects that the growth of such an industry would have on the United
States. In concluding, this Article asserts that while Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol will not be a complete solution to either peak oil or climate
change, it can and should be included in future U.S. energy policy. It further concludes, when the post-Castro era begins,
the United States should move quickly to encourage the growth of a Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol industry.\
Peak oil conflicts goes nuclear
Qasem in ‘7
(Islam, Masters in IR @ Columbia, “The Coming Warfare of Oil Shortage”, 7-9,
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_islam_ya_070709_the_coming_warfare_o.htm)
Recognizing the strategic value of oil for their national interests, superpowers will not
hesitate to unleash their economic and military power to ensure secure
access to oil resources, triggering worldwide tension, if not armed conflict. And while superpowers like the United States
maintain superior conventional military power, in addition to their nuclear power, some weaker states are already
nuclearly armed, others are seeking nuclear weapons. In an anarchic world
with many nuclear-weapon states feeling insecure, and a global economy in downward spiral,
the chances of using nuclear weapons in pursues of national interests are
high.
--EXT ENVIRONMENT
Cuban sugarcane is great for the environment
Specht ’13- Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012
(Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, 36 UC Davis L. Rev. 190-191,
April 24 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) //CW
Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol would have the environmental benefits of Brazilian sugarcane-based
ethanol without its most obvious negative factor, damaging habitat in the Cerrado. The environmental effects of
biofuels depend on a number of factors. Whether or not a given type of biofuel is environmentally
beneficial “depends on what the fuel is, how and where the biomass was produced, what else the land
could have been used for, how the fuel was processed and how it is used.” 115 Taken together, these
factors point to sugarcane-based ethanol grown in Cuba as one of the most environmentally friendly
biofuels possible. The environmental benefits of using sugarcane to produce ethanol are numerous.
First, it is much more energy efficient to derive ethanol from sugarcane than corn. Making ethanol from
corn only creates approximately 1.3 times the amount of energy used to produce it, but making ethanol
from sugarcane creates approximately eight times the amount of energy used to produce it. 116
Second, unlike much of the corn presently grown in Great Plains states, sugarcane grown in Latin
America does not need to be irrigated. 117 Third, sugarcane requires relatively small amounts of chemical
fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. 118 Fourth, whereas most U.S. ethanol refineries are powered by
coal or natural gas, 119 sugarcane ethanol refineries can be powered by bagasse, a natural product left
over from the sugar refining process. 120 In fact, refineries powered with bagasse can even produce more
electricity than they need and sell power back to the electric grid. 121 Fifth, although corn can only be
planted and harvested once a year, in tropical climates sugarcane can be cut from the same stalks
multiple times per year. 122 Each of these factors in favor of sugarcane ethanol is true of ethanol from
Brazil as well as of any potential ethanol from Cuba. However, there are additional environmental
factors that clinch Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol as one of the most environmentally friendly fuel
sources available to the United States under current technology. 123 First, because Cuba is closer to the
United States, transporting ethanol from Cuba to the United States would require less energy than
transporting ethanol from Brazil to the United States (especially if it is used in Florida, an option further explored in the
section on economic effects). 124 Another reason Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol could be one of the most environmentally friendly fuels
possible is that
Cuba could produce a significant amount of ethanol without any negative impacts on native
habitat. A striking amount of Cuban agricultural land — fifty five percent as of 2007 — is simply lying fallow and is
not cultivated with anything. 125 Although its character may have changed due to years of neglect, this land is not virgin native
habitat like the grasslands of North Dakota or the Cerrado of Brazil. Cuba therefore could greatly increase its production of
sugarcane, and thus its production of sugarcane-based ethanol, without negative impacts on wildlife
habitat. While it is not environmentally perfect — no form of energy is — Cuban sugarcane based
ethanol would raise fewer environmental concerns than the fuel sources it would displace: petroleum,
domestic corn-based ethanol, and Brazilian sugarcane based ethanol. Therefore, from a purely
environmental perspective, changing U.S. law and policy in order to promote the importation of Cuban
sugarcane-based ethanol should be encouraged.
AGRICULTURE IMPACT
Sugar ethanol trade boosts US agriculture trade
Specht ’13- Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012
(Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, 36 UC Davis L. Rev. 201, April
24 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) //CW
Outside of the Midwest and Florida, from
a purely economic (rather than environmental and economic)
perspective, the question of whether the United States should replace a portion of its gasoline with
domestic corn-based ethanol or Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol would appear to largely be a wash. On
one hand, the U.S. trade deficit would increase to the extent that a domestically produced product was
replaced by imports. On the other, opening trade relations with Cuba generally would open many
opportunities for exports from the United States to that country. This could include exports of corn and other products
from the Midwest. Perhaps the primary U.S. beneficiaries of replacing a portion of domestic corn-based
ethanol with Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol, outside of Florida, would be livestock farmers and
ranchers. The primary economic considerations for whether a given dairy, beef, pork, or chicken operation can be profitable are the costs of
feed and the price of the product sold (milk, beef, pork, or chicken). By driving up the cost of corn, the domestic cornbased ethanol industry threatens the profitability of U.S. livestock operations. 183 Thus, importing
sugarcane-based ethanol from Cuba could actually benefit a sector of the U.S. agricultural industry —
including the portion of it in the Midwest — by lowering demand for corn and thus the price of corn.
Agriculture is key to prevent global famine which kills billions
Reason 2000 (“Billions Served”, April, http://www.reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml, N.B. Borlaug is
a Noble Peace Price Winner and Professor at Texas A & M University)
Borlaug, who unfortunately is far less well-known than doom-sayer Ehrlich, is responsible for much of the progress
humanity has made against hunger. Despite occasional local famines caused by armed conflicts or political
mischief, food is more abundant and cheaper today than ever before in histor y, due in large part to the work of Borlaug and his
colleagues.
More than 30 years ago, Borlaug wrote, "One of the greatest threats to mankind today is that the world may be choked by an explosively pervading but well camouflaged bureaucracy." As
believes that environmental activists and their allies in international agencies are a
threat to progress on global food security. Barring such interference, he is confident that agricultural research,
including biotechnology, will be able to boost crop production to meet the demand for food in a world of 8 billion
or so, the projected population in 2025.
REASON's interview with him shows, he still
Meanwhile, media darlings like Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown keep up their drumbeat of doom. In 1981 Brown declared, "The period of global food security is over." In 1994, he
wrote, "The world's farmers can no longer be counted on to feed the projected additions to our numbers." And as recently as 1997 he warned, "Food scarcity will be the defining issue of the
new era now unfolding, much as ideological conflict was the defining issue of the historical era that recently ended."
Borlaug, by contrast, does not just wring his hands. He still works to get modern agricultural technology into the hands of hungry farmers in the developing world. Today, he is a consultant to
the International Maize and Wheat Center in Mexico and president of the Sasakawa Africa Association, a private Japanese foundation working to spread the Green Revolution to sub-Saharan
Africa.
REASON Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey met with Borlaug at Texas A&M, where he is Distinguished Professor in the Soil and Crop Sciences Department and still teaches classes on
occasion. Despite his achievements, Borlaug is a modest man who works out of a small windowless office in the university's agricultural complex. A few weeks before the interview, Texas A&M
. "We have to have this new technology if we are to meet the
growing food needs for the next 25 years," Borlaug declared at the dedication ceremony. If the naysayers do
manage to stop agricultural biotech, he fears, they may finally bring on the famines they have been predicting for
so long.
honored Borlaug by naming its new agricultural biotechnology center after him
WARMING IMPACT
Warming is real and sugar ethanol key to solve- fed gov also key
Specht ’13- Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012
(Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, 36 UC Davis L. Rev. 203-206,
April 24 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) //CW
While it
is currently impossible to blame any single climatological event on climate change, even one as
large as a major regional drought, scientists have long predicted that such droughts as the Midwest
experienced in 2012 are the type of events that will result from climate change. 192 Adding to the
already overwhelming evidence that climate change is occurring (and should no longer be a matter of
debate), 193 July 2012 was the hottest month the United States has experienced in 118 years of meteorological records. 194 The key to
halting (or at least slowing) climate change will be to keep as large an amount as is possible of the
carbon stored in fossil fuels — coal, oil, and natural gas — in the ground and out of the atmosphere. 195
By providing an alternative to petroleum, biofuels can help to reduce oil consumption and therefore aid
in the extremely important challenge of keeping carbon underground. As the United States faces the
twin challenges of climate change and peak oil, biofuels must be a part of the solution. However, it is
imperative that policies promoting biofuels are capable of accomplishing the United States’
environmental and energy goals. Neither a wholesale abandonment of federal involvement in the
development of biofuels nor a continuation of the corn centric status quo is an acceptable way forward.
The development of a Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol industry is part of a potential solution. Whether the
former incentives for the domestic ethanol that expired at the end of 2011 will be revived by a future Farm Bill remains to be seen. Even if they
are not, as long
as the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba continues there will be little chance of that country
making a substantial investment in the development of an entire new industry. It is understandable, for facesaving reasons, that United States policy-makers would not consider ending the decades-long trade embargo against Cuba as long as Fidel
Castro remains alive. 196 But, as soon as possible after a governmental transition begins in Cuba, United
States policy-makers
should consider taking steps to encourage the creation of such an industry. Although they represent different
regions of the country, when Congress and the president make decisions in Washington, they are supposed to act in the best interests of the
entire country. Thus, it would seem improper to suggest that the federal government should implement legal and policy changes that would
clearly economically favor one part of the country, Florida, to the detriment of another part, the Midwest. Arguably, however, through its
policies encouraging the corn-dominated domestic ethanol industry and (until the end of 2011, at least) discouraging ethanol imports, the
federal government has already answered this question, in favor of benefitting the Midwest to the detriment of Florida. As the effects of the
drought of 2012 illustrate, this has been a policy decision fraught with wide-ranging consequences. 197 The
possibility of importing
ethanol from Cuba has been almost completely ignored in U.S. political discourse. 198 Yet, it will almost certainly
become a more prominent issue after the Castro era ends and the United States moves toward normalizing trade relations with Cuba. Sooner
or later, it is likely that the issue will even come up in presidential campaigns. It is thus particularly salient that the two states that would
arguably have the most to lose or gain from the importation of Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol, Iowa 199 and Florida, are the archetypal
political battleground states in presidential elections. 200 The
difficulty of weighing a decision to implement policy
changes that would have a number of positive environmental effects and (regionally, at least) some
negative economic effects is made more difficult by the fact that the free market system does not put a
direct monetary value or cost on many environmental effects. “Some people are uncomfortable with the idea of trying
to figure out the economic value of ecosystem services such as clean water . . . . [T]he problem is right now we take those free services for
granted despite their obvious value to society.” 201 Just
as positive ecosystem services (like water filtration provided
by a wetland) do not yet have positive economic values attached to them, negative environmental
decisions like burning coal or plowing a native grassland to plant corn do not yet have negative
economic values attached to them. This does not necessarily need to be the case. For example, if the United
States put a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, there would be a greater correlation between the economic and environmental costs of utilizing
a given resource (such as coal or ethanol from corn grown on former native grassland). However, given that the House of Representatives still
disputes whether climate change is happening, 202 the likelihood of a carbon tax or even a cap and trade system for carbon emission credits
becoming law in the immediate future is improbable. There is a greater likelihood of the United States unilaterally ending its trade embargo
against Cuba while Fidel Castro is still alive. This does not mean, however, that
the decision-makers will not weigh the
climate change effects of different fuel sources. As is often the case in American politics, a state
government has acted before the federal government on the issue of climate change. 203 In 2007, Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order directing California to set a goal of reducing the “carbon intensity of California’s
transportation fuels by ten percent by 2020.” 204 This standard, known as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), applies “to all refiners,
blenders, producers, or importers . . . of transportation fuels in California” and is measured on a “full fuels cycle basis.” 205 The full fuels cycle
basis looks at the carbon consequences of a type of fuel’s entire production process and not just of burning the fuel. 206 Assuming California’s
LCFS survives the constitutional challenge brought against it 207 and Cuban
sugarcane- based ethanol produced fewer
carbon emissions than domestic corn-based ethanol, California may then exert pressure on federal policy-makers to
encourage the growth of an ethanol industry. California is geographically remote from both the Corn Belt and Florida, and, therefore, has
relatively little at stake economically in the debate between deriving ethanol from domestic corn or Cuban sugarcane. Thus, California could
point to itself as a
neutral decisionmaker, interested primarily in reducing the fossil fuel consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions of its vehicles. 208
Warming is an existential risk – quickening reductions is key to avoiding extinction
Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
(Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science
Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate Conflict: How global
warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 122)//BB
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the
scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which
actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels
(which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels
in emissions, the effects of climate
change in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic
for the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate
change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced
economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread
state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been
condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change
by the end of the century." Without early and severe reductions
beyond the end of the century could
pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that
there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such
climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would
mean profound social, cultural and political changes.
--EXT WARMING
Cuban sugar ethanol solves global warming
Specht ’13- Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012
(Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, 36 UC Davis L. Rev. 181, April
24 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) //CW
Assuming that Cuba is able to meet all the challenges standing in the way of creating a sugarcane-based ethanol industry, including the removal
of U.S. legal barriers, and it begins importing ethanol to the United States,
the United States would benefit environmentally
in two ways. First, Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol would directly benefit the United States by reducing
the negative environmental effects of corn-based ethanol production, to the extent to which it replaced
domestically produced corn-based ethanol. 55 Second, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Cuban
sugarcane-based ethanol would indirectly benefit the United States as well as the rest of the world by
reducing the speed of global climate change. 56
WATER WARS
Water shortages coming now
Durden ‘13- guest writer for Zero Hedge (Zach, “Guest Post: 30 Facts On The Coming Water Crisis That Will Change Everything”, Zero
Hedge, March 6 2013, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-06/guest-post-30-facts-coming-water-crisis-will-change-everything) //CW
The world is rapidly running out of clean water. Some of the largest lakes and rivers on the globe are
being depleted at a very frightening pace, and many of the most important underground aquifers that
we depend on to irrigate our crops will soon be gone. At this point, approximately 40 percent of the
entire population of the planet has little or no access to clean water, and it is being projected that by
2025 two-thirds of humanity will live in "water-stressed" areas. But most Americans are not too concerned about all of
this because they assume that North America has more fresh water than anyone else does. And actually they would be right about that, but the
truth is that even North America is rapidly running out of water and it is going to change all of our lives. Today,
the most important
underground water source in America, the Ogallala Aquifer, is rapidly running dry. The most important lake in
the western United States, Lake Mead, is rapidly running dry. The most important river in the western United States, the Colorado River, is
rapidly running dry. Putting
our heads in the sand and pretending that we are not on the verge of an
absolutely horrific water crisis is not going to make it go away. Without water, you cannot grow crops,
you cannot raise livestock and you cannot support modern cities. As this global water crisis gets worse, it
is going to affect every single man, woman and child on the planet. I encourage you to keep reading and
learn more. The U.S. intelligence community understands what is happening. According to one shocking
government report that was released last year, the global need for water will exceed the global supply
of water by 40 percent by the year 2030... This sobering message emerges from the first U.S. Intelligence
Community Assessment of Global Water Security. The document predicts that by 2030 humanity's
"annual global water requirements" will exceed "current sustainable water supplies" by forty percent.
Oh, but our scientists will find a solution to our problems long before then, won't they? But what if they don't? Most Americans tend to think of
a "water crisis" as something that happens in very dry places such as Africa or the Middle East, but the truth is that almost the entire western
half of the United States is historically a very dry place. The western U.S. has been hit very hard by drought in recent years, and many
communities are on the verge of having to make some very hard decisions. For example, just look at what is happening to Lake Mead. Scientists
are projecting that Lake Mead has a 50 percent chance of running dry by the year 2025. If that happens, it will mean the end of Las Vegas as we
know it. But the problems will not be limited just to Las Vegas. The truth is that if Lake Mead runs dry, it will be a major disaster for that entire
region of the country. This was explained in a recent article by Alex Daley... Way
before people run out of drinking water,
something else happens: When Lake Mead falls below 1,050 feet, the Hoover Dam's turbines shut down
– less than four years from now, if the current trend holds – and in Vegas the lights start going out.
Ominously, these water woes are not confined to Las Vegas. Under contracts signed by President Obama in December
2011, Nevada gets only 23.37% of the electricity generated by the Hoover Dam. The other top recipients: Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (28.53%); state of Arizona (18.95%); city of Los Angeles (15.42%); and Southern California Edison (5.54%).
You can
always build more power plants, but you can't build more rivers, and the mighty Colorado carries the lifeblood of the
Southwest. It services the water needs of an area the size of France, in which live 40 million people. In its natural state, the river poured 15.7
million acre-feet of water into the Gulf of California each year. Today,
twelve years of drought have reduced the flow to
about 12 million acre-feet, and human demand siphons off every bit of it; at its mouth, the riverbed is
nothing but dust. Nor is the decline in the water supply important only to the citizens of Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Los Angeles. It's
critical to the whole country. The Colorado is the sole source of water for southeastern California's Imperial Valley, which has been
made into one of the most productive agricultural areas in the US despite receiving an average of three inches of rain per year. Are you starting
to get an idea of just how serious this all is? But it is not just our lakes and our rivers that are going dry. We are also depleting our groundwater
at a very frightening pace as a recent Science Daily article discussed... Three results of the new study are particularly striking: First, during the
most recent drought in California's Central Valley, from 2006 to 2009, farmers in the south depleted enough groundwater to fill the nation's
largest human-made reservoir, Lake Mead near Las Vegas -- a level of groundwater depletion that is unsustainable at current recharge rates.
Second, a third of the groundwater depletion in the High Plains occurs in just 4% of the land area. And third, the researchers project that if
current trends continue some parts of the southern High Plains that currently support irrigated agriculture, mostly in the Texas Panhandle and
western Kansas, will be unable to do so within a few decades. In
the United States we have massive underground
aquifers that have allowed our nation to be the breadbasket of the world. But once the water from
those aquifers is gone, it is gone for good. That is why what is happening to the Ogallala Aquifer is so
alarming. The Ogallala Aquifer is one of the largest sources of fresh water in the world, and U.S. farmers
use water from it to irrigate more than 15 million acres of crops each year. The Ogallala Aquifer covers
more than 100,000 square miles and it sits underneath the states of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska,
Wyoming and South Dakota. Most Americans have never even heard of it, but it is absolutely crucial to our way
of life. Sadly, it is being drained at a rate that is almost unimaginable. The following are some facts about
the Ogallala Aquifer and the growing water crisis that we are facing in the United States. A number of these
facts were taken from one of my previous articles. I think that you will agree that many of these facts are quite alarming... 1. The Ogallala
Aquifer is being drained at a rate of approximately 800 gallons per minute. 2. According to the U.S.
Geological Survey, "a volume equivalent to two-thirds of the water in Lake Erie" has been permanently
drained from the Ogallala Aquifer since 1940. 3. Decades ago, the Ogallala Aquifer had an average depth
of approximately 240 feet, but today the average depth is just 80 feet. In some areas of Texas, the water is gone
completely. 4. Scientists are warning that nothing can be done to stop the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer. The ominous words of David
Brauer of the Ogallala Research Service should alarm us all... "Our goal now is to engineer a soft landing. That's all we can do." 5. According to a
recent National Geographic article, the
average depletion rate of the Ogallala Aquifer is picking up speed.... Even
more worrisome, the draining of the High Plains water account has picked up speed. The average annual
depletion rate between 2000 and 2007 was more than twice that during the previous fifty years. The depletion is most severe in the southern
portion of the aquifer, especially in Texas, where the water table beneath sizeable areas has dropped 100-150 feet; in smaller pockets, it has
dropped more than 150 feet. 6. According to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the
U.S. interior west is now the driest
that it has been in 500 years. 7. Wildfires have burned millions of acres of vegetation in the central part
of the United States in recent years. For example, wildfires burned an astounding 3.6 million acres in the state of Texas alone
during 2011. This helps set the stage for huge dust storms in the future. 8. Unfortunately, scientists tell us
that it would be normal for extremely dry conditions to persist in parts of western North America for
decades. The following is from an article in the Vancouver Sun... But University of Regina paleoclimatologist Jeannine-Marie St. Jacques says
that decade-long drought is nowhere near as bad as it can get. St. Jacques and her colleagues have been studying tree ring data and, at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Vancouver over the weekend, she explained the reality of droughts.
"What we're seeing
in the climate records is these megadroughts, and they don't last a decade—they
last 20 years, 30 years, maybe 60 years, and they'll be semi-continental in expanse," she told the Regina LeaderPost by phone from Vancouver. "So it's like what we saw in the Dirty Thirties, but imagine the Dirty Thirties going on for 30 years. That's what
scares those of us who are in the community studying this data pool." 9. Experts tell us that U.S. water bills are likely to soar in the coming
years. It is being projected that repairing and expanding our decaying drinking water infrastructure will cost more than one trillion dollars over
the next 25 years, and as a result our water bills will likely approximately triple over that time period. 10. Right now, the United States uses
approximately 148 trillion gallons of fresh water a year, and there is no way that is sustainable in the long run. 11. According to a U.S.
government report, 36
states are already facing water shortages or will be facing water shortages within the
next few years. 12. Lake Mead supplies about 85 percent of the water to Las Vegas, and since 1998 the level of water in Lake Mead has
dropped by about 5.6 trillion gallons. 13. It has been estimated that the state of California only has a 20 year supply of fresh water left. 14. It
has been estimated that the state of New Mexico only has a 10 year supply of fresh water left. 15. Approximately
40 percent of all
rivers in the United States and approximately 46 percent of all lakes in the United States have become
so polluted that they are are no longer fit for human use. The 1,450 mile long Colorado River is a good example of what
we have done to our precious water supplies. It is probably the most important body of water in the southwestern United States, and it is
rapidly dying. The following is an excerpt from an outstanding article by Jonathan Waterman about how the once mighty Colorado River is
rapidly drying up... Fifty miles from the sea, 1.5 miles south of the Mexican border, I saw a river evaporate into a scum of phosphates and
discarded water bottles. This dirty water sent me home with feet so badly infected that I couldn’t walk for a week. And a delta once renowned
for its wildlife and wetlands is now all but part of the surrounding and parched Sonoran Desert. According to Mexican scientists whom I met
with, the river has not flowed to the sea since 1998. If the Endangered Species Act had any teeth in Mexico, we might have a chance to save the
giant sea bass (totoaba), clams, the Sea of Cortez shrimp fishery that depends upon freshwater returns, and dozens of bird species. So let this
stand as an open invitation to the former Secretary of the Interior and all water buffalos who insist upon telling us that there is no scarcity of
water here or in the Mexican Delta. Leave the sprinklered green lawns outside the Aspen conferences, come with me, and I’ll show you a
Colorado River running dry from its headwaters to the sea. It is polluted and compromised by industry and agriculture. It is overallocated,
drought stricken, and soon to suffer greatly from population growth. If other leaders in our administration continue the whitewash, the scarcity
of knowledge and lack of conservation measures will cripple a western civilization built upon water. But of course North America is in far better
shape when it comes to fresh water than the rest of the world is. In fact, in many areas of the world today water has already become the most
important issue. The following are some incredible
facts about the global water crisis that is getting even worse
with each passing day... 1. Total global water use has quadrupled over the past 100 years, and it is now
increasing faster than it ever has been before. 2. Today, there are 1.6 billion people that live in areas of
the globe that are considered to be "water-stressed", and it is being projected that two-thirds of the
entire population of the globe will be experiencing "water-stressed" conditions by the year 2025. 3.
According to USAID, one-third of the people on earth will be facing "severe" or "chronic" water
shortages by the year 2025. 4. Once upon a time, the Aral Sea was the 4th largest freshwater lake in the entire world. At this point, it
less than 10 percent the size that it used to be, and it is being projected that it will dry up completely by the year 2020. 5. If you can believe it,
the flow of water along the Jordan River is down to only 2 percent of its historic rate. 6. It is being projected that the demand for water in China
will exceed the supply by 25 percent by the year 2030. 7. According to the United Nations, the world is going to need at least 30 percent more
fresh water by the year 2030. 8. Sadly, it is estimated that approximately 40 percent of the children living in Africa and India have had their
growth stunted due to unclean water and malnutrition. 9. Of the 60 million people added to the cities of the world each year, the vast majority
of them live in deeply impoverished areas that have no sanitation facilities whatsoever. 10. It has been estimated that 75 percent of all surface
water in India has been heavily contaminated by human or agricultural waste. 11. Sadly, according to one UN study on sanitation, far more
people in India have access to a cell phone than to a toilet. 12. Every 8 seconds, somewhere in the world a child dies from drinking dirty water.
13. Due to a lack of water, Saudi Arabia has given up on trying to grow wheat and will be 100 percent dependent on wheat imports by the year
2016. 14. Each year in northern China, the water table drops by an average of about one meter due to severe drought and overpumping, and
the size of the desert increases by an area equivalent to the state of Rhode Island. 15. In China, 80 percent of the major rivers have become so
horribly polluted that they do not support any aquatic life at all at this point. So
is there any hope that the coming global
water crisis can be averted? If not, what can we do to prepare?
Water shortages cause war
GPSS ’13- insights and explanations from CNN's Fareed Zakaria, leading journalists at TIME and CNN, and other international thinkers (Global
Public Square Staff, “The coming water wars?”, CNN, March 22 2013, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/22/the-coming-waterwars/) //CW
A pioneering study from NASA and the University of California Irvine shows how the Middle East is losing its fresh water reserves. As you can
see from the satellite imagery in the video,
we’re going from blues and greens, to yellows and reds: that’s 144 cubic
kilometers of lost water between 2003 and 2009. What do we mean by “lost water”? Most of it comes
from below the Earth’s surface, from water trapped in rocks. In times of drought, we tend to drill for
water by constructing wells and pumps. But the Earth has a finite supply. NASA’s scientists say pumping
for water is the equivalent of using up your bank savings. And that bank account is dwindling. This could
have serious implications. Conflicts over water are as old as the story of Noah – in 3,000 BC. The Pacific Institute lists 225 such
conflicts through history. What’s fascinating is that nearly half of those conflicts took place in the last two decades. Are we going to see
a new era of wars fought over water? Consider that NASA’s study is of one of the most volatile regions in
the world. We tend to think of the Middle East and its upheavals as defined by oil. Perhaps in the future
it will be defined by water. We often talk of a world of nuclear haves and have-nots, but a world of
water haves and have-nots could be even more dangerous. Part of the problem is that the world’s needs have changed.
Look at the population boom. We’ve gone from 4 billion people in 1975, to around 7 billion today. The United Nations projects we will hit 9
billion by 2050. Meanwhile, as India, China, and Africa continue to add millions to their middle classes, global demand for all kinds of food and
products will increase. All of those products cost money – except for water, which we like to think of as abundant and free. Yet
water is
the resource we need to worry most about. According to the World Health Organization, more than 780
million people – that’s two-and-a-half times the population of the United States – lack access to clean
water. More than 3 million people die every year from this shortage. As our needs expand, so will the
shortfall.
OGALLALA AQUIFER
Kills regional bio-d
Grist ’12- writer for Mother Earth News (Grist, “Ogallala Aquifer Depletion Affects Midwest Farmers”, Mother Earth News, August 10 2012,
http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/ogallala-aquifer-depletion-zwfz1208zhun.aspx#axzz2Z2k67vCH) //CW
Scientific American explains what Ogallala aquifer depletion could mean: The problem with drawing too
much water from an aquifer, which has been stored in these geologic formations for thousands of years, is that it can’t easily
be restored once pumped dry. … Once pumped dry, the Ogallala would take at least 6,000 years to refill.
Another complication of pumping too much water from an aquifer is that creeks will run dry and surface
waters can literally be sucked back underneath the surface. That’s not good for wildlife. And from NPR: Some
of these aquifers are being exploited at a stunning rate, but what’s truly alarming is how many people depend on that over-exploitation for
their food. These aquifers include the Upper Ganges, covering densely populated areas of northern India and Pakistan, and the North China
plain, which is the heart of corn-growing in that country. The aquifer of Western Mexico has become a large source of fruit and vegetable
production for the U.S. The High Plains aquifer in the United States, meanwhile, is having a particularly bad year. Farmers are pumping even
more than usual, because of the drought afflicting this part of the country, and it is getting less replenishment from rainfall. So
water
levels in the aquifer are falling even faster, leaving less water for the region’s rivers, birds, and fish.
Bio-D prevents extinction
Ghista ’05 (Garda, freelance journalist and public advocate
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2005/04/biodiversity_un.html “Biodiversity Underprotected or Overprotected?”)
Biodiversity is crucial to human survival, and far greater efforts must get underway to preserve
biodiversity.[3] When we lose particular species, when they become extinct,it affects the entire
ecosystem. In addition, potential drugs that could cure modern diseases are lost forever. For this very
reason, if human beings do not take care of all other life forms on our planet, it is the people themselves who will
incur the greatest suffering as a consequence. While extinction of species is a normal process in nature, and while
99.9 percent of all species that once lived are now extinct, that process of extinction is a gradual one
and therefore does not cause harm to those left behind. If extinction occurs in a natural gradual manner, there will be new
species to replace the old through allopatric or sympatric speciation.[4] Disease, new predators, climate change, habitat loss and other factors
cause the normal extinction of plant and animal life. However,
what is happening today is something entirely different.
Today it is the calculated actions of a few human beings �greedy capitalists for whom money is the
summum bonum of life �that are causing havoc to our environment.
LIFTING THE EMBARGO SOLVES
The lifting of the embargo and funding of a sugar industry solves
Specht ’13- Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012
(Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, 36 UC Davis L. Rev. 179-180,
April 24 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) //CW
The ideal domestic policy scenario for the creation of a robust Cuban sugarcane ethanol industry would
be a situation in which: the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba is ended; U.S. tariff barriers are removed (in the
case of sugar) or not revived (in the case of ethanol); and the RFS requiring that a certain percentage of
U.S. fuel come from ethanol remain in place. Of course, changes in United States policy alone, even those that ensure a steady
source of demand for Cuban sugarcane-based ethanol, would not be enough to create an ethanol industry from scratch. Cuba
will need to foster the industry as a key goal of the post-Castro era and shape its domestic policies to
encourage the growth of the industry.
Lifting the embargo causes Cuban energy exports in sugar and nickel
Gerz-Escandon, 8 - an independent scholar and former professor of political science based in
Atlanta.(Jennifer, Christian Science Monitor, “End the US-Cuba embargo: It's a win-win” 10/9, lexis)
Secondly, direct US engagement could allow two of the nation's largest
revenue generators, the Cuban nickel and sugar industries, to expand into
more capital-intensive energy research through university and privatesector partnerships.
Most Cuban exports are currently destined for Canada, China, or the
Netherlands as raw or lightly refined materials. Yet, with funding for technology and
without the fear of embargo-based repercussions from the US, Cuban
research opportunities and export products could have the potential to
diversify.
By gaining the freedom and cooperative assistance to make this transition, Cuba could address its own
energy dependence while leap-frogging years ahead on modernization. For starters, Cuba could
explore the sugar-bioenergy market and the energy-related uses of nickel.
Given the abundance of well-trained but under-employed Cuban engineers,
the ingredients for a perfect storm of innovation are already present.
Investment in sugar ethanol solves
Elledge ’09- COHA Research Fellow (Nicholas, “CUBA’S SUGARCANE ETHANOL POTENTIAL: CUBA, RAUL CASTRO, AND THE RETURN OF KING
SUGAR TO THE ISLAND”, COHA, Oct 29 2009, http://www.coha.org/cubas-sugarcane-ethanol-potential/) // CW
Despite its clear deterioration in recent years, a
revived Cuban sugar industry could serve an important role in the
immediate future by attracting a new tranche of foreign investment while bolstering the country’s
failing economy through the production of raw sugar, which would be processed into renewable fuel as
well as cogenerate electricity. In fact, Cuba has produced ethanol in the past; when imported oil supplies were
drastically curbed during the WWII conflict, Cuba produced roughly 26 million gallons of anhydrous ethanol to blend
with gasoline. This practice, however, was discontinued after the war in order to meet U.S. raw sugar import quotas. Today, Juan Tomás
Sanchez of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy estimates
that Cuba eventually could supply up to 3.2
billion gallons of ethanol annually. A more modest prediction by Cuba expert Jorge Hernandez Fonseca projects a
production figure around 2 billion gallons per year, which would still make the island the third largest sugar
producer in the world, behind the U.S. and Brazil. Regardless, Rivera Ortiz, director of the Cuban business society ZERUS, told business
magazine Opciones in 2006 that, “any efforts by foreign and Cuban entrepreneurs to jointly produce ethanol in
Cuba must first look at guaranteeing financial and technological resources needed to boost sugarcane
production as the necessary raw material for the advancement of ethanol projects.”
ECONOMICALLY EFFICIENT
Sugar ethanol would be economically efficient
Specht ’13- Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012
(Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, 36 UC Davis L. Rev. 200-201,
April 24 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) //CW
According to a report from the U.S. Biomass Board, “The
attractiveness of one [biofuel] feedstock over another will
also be determined by the cost of delivering that feedstock from ‘root to refinery.’ That cost will be a
function of harvesting and collecting costs, which vary with the weight and bulk of the feedstock, and
distance to the biofuel plant. Transportation costs are a major issue for many ethanol producers.” 178
Shipping Cuban sugar by sea to an ethanol refinery in Florida would be a low cost transportation option.
179 Additionally, according to a 2006 report from the USDA’s Office of the Chief Economist, the capital expenditure costs of
building a new sugarcane ethanol plant would be substantially reduced if it were built adjacent to an
existing sugar production facility. 180 Thus, some of Florida’s existing sugar refineries could also become
ethanol refineries at a lower cost than building a completely new ethanol refinery. Looking further into the
future, a dedicated ethanol pipeline has been proposed to bring ethanol from the corn-producing Midwest to the fuel-hungry East Coast. 181 If
a stable and consistent international ethanol trade arises with Florida as its U.S. entrepôt, eventually a
dedicated ethanol pipeline could be built from Florida to Atlanta (a major fuel consuming city). 182 This
would be beneficial both in stimulating Atlanta’s fledgling ethanol market and bringing construction jobs
to the states of Florida and Georgia.
--AT: OIL
Oil is unsustainable- shift to ethanol is key- only LIQUID fuel solves
Specht ’13- Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012
(Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, 36 UC Davis L. Rev. 172-173,
April 24 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) //CW
“The United States of America cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity and security on a resource
that will eventually run out.” 1 This dramatic quote from President Obama opens the White House’s forty-four page Blueprint for a
Secure Energy Future. 2 The resource referred to, oil, is indeed finite. “[T]he output of conventional oil will
peak in 2020,” according to estimates from the chief economist for the International Energy Agency. 3
The transportation sector has increased its oil consumption over the past thirty years in the United States while
residential, commercial, and electric utilities have decreased consumption. 4 Simply put, America’s oil problem is an automobile
problem. There are a number of ways the U.S. transportation sector could reduce the amount of oil it
consumes: raising vehicle fuel efficiency standards further; increasing and improving light rail and other public transportation options;
building more walkable communities so daily errands could be made without using an automobile; encouraging people to live closer to where
they work; and increasing the availability of electric cars. 5 Yet,
even using all of these strategies comprehensively will
not change a fundamental fact of our oil-based transportation system — in certain areas (like rural
communities and outer suburbs) the automobile is essential for transportation, and liquid fuel is
extremely convenient for automobiles. With a liquid fuel engine, a driver can “re-charge” his or her car
in a few minutes with a substance that is widely available from Boston to Boise and everywhere in between. With the
conveniences of oil, however, come costs. Oil is a finite resource, and its consumption pollutes the air
and contributes to climate change. Furthermore, it is expensive 6 and will only get more expensive in
the future. 7 However, any realistic plan for dealing with a future of reduced oil use must include liquid
fuels that are similar in convenience and availability to gasoline, given the geography of the United States, the state of
the current domestic transportation
--AT: KILLS MIDWEST ECON
Imports don’t hurt corn prices or the Midwest
Specht ’13- Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012
(Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, 36 UC Davis L. Rev. 197-198,
April 24 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) //CW
Additionally, while
exposing the domestic ethanol industry to competition from imported ethanol might
bring down corn prices, it would likely not be enough to reduce them enough to bring a 1980s-style farm
crisis to the Midwest. There are many sources of demand for corn in addition to ethanol. Contrary to
popular perception, the majority of U.S. corn production does not become food for people — at least
not directly. The largest percentage of the annual U.S. corn crop — between forty-eight and fifty-nine
percent in the mid years of the 2000s — goes to animal feed. 164 In addition, about one fifth of the
annual U.S. corn crop is exported. 165 The remaining percentage of the crop is mostly processed in a number of ways. The
products from corn processing include corn sweeteners (high fructose corn syrup), corn oil, corn starch,
and biodegradable plastics. 166 Even if corn-based ethanol production were to decline, U.S. corn prices
are likely to remain relatively high for the near-to-midterm future. This is mainly due to global rise of the
middle class, a resource-intensive phenomenon that is especially pronounced in countries like India and
China and is driving up prices for a large number of commodities. 167 For example, if the Chinese economy continues
to grow and more Chinese citizens move from rural areas to cities, join the middle class, and therefore start eating more pork, 168 there will
be upward pressure on demand for U.S. corn and therefore on U.S. corn prices. 169 Thus, because of
factors outside of the entire debate over importing ethanol from elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere
(and indeed, outside anything in the Western Hemisphere) a reduction in demand for corn-based
ethanol would not necessarily lead to low corn prices.
--AT: CORN ETHANOL
Not the answer- sugar ethanol from Cuba is
Specht ’13- Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012
(Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, 36 UC Davis L. Rev. 173-174,
April 24 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) //CW
This does not mean, however, that corn-based ethanol, thus far the major liquid-fuel petroleum
alternative pursued by the United States, is the best answer. While it has benefitted the Midwest economically, the
domestic ethanol industry has also contributed to a number of negative environmental effects. There is,
however, another liquid fuel option other than fossil-fuel based gasoline and corn-based ethanol. The
Obama Administration’s energy plan includes a wide range of strategies to reduce U.S. fossil fuel
consumption, yet one strategy is notably absent from the Blueprint: replacing a percentage of U.S.
gasoline with ethanol imported from outside the United States. 9 A number of influential commentators, such as
Thomas Friedman 10 and The Economist, 11 have called for the United States to encourage the importation of sugarcane based ethanol from
countries like Brazil. But the
possibility of importing ethanol from Cuba has been largely ignored by influential
opinion-makers as well as the United States government. 12 While by no means a silver bullet for solving the United
States’ energy problems, importing ethanol made from sugarcane grown in Cuba would bring a number of
environmental and economic benefits — partially offset by regionalized economic harms — to the United States. This
possibility, at the very least, deserves much greater consideration and evaluation than it has thus far
received.
And corn ethanol is terrible for the environment
Specht ’13- Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012
(Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, 36 UC Davis L. Rev. 182, April
24 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) //CW
Using any form of ethanol as a transportation fuel combats climate change because the carbon released
when ethanol is burned was captured out of the atmosphere by the plants used to make the ethanol.
Contrastingly, the carbon released when gasoline is burned had been stored in the earth for millennia in
the form of crude oil. 59 This simple fact is complicated by the reality that the entire process of getting ethanol into the fuel tanks of
drivers — from growing crops, to creating a refined product, to delivering blended ethanol to gas stations — is reliant on fossil fuels. According
to one report, “If
corn growth required only photosynthesis, if ethanol were produced using solar power, if
corn were instantly transported to ethanol plants, and if no land use changes were needed to grow the
corn, then displacing a gallon of gasoline with ethanol would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
approximately [the equivalent of] 11.2 kilograms of [carbon dioxide]. However, fossil fuels are used to
grow corn and produce ethanol.” 60 The debit side of the domestic ethanol industry’s climate-change ledger begins to subtract
from the credit side before the corn it uses is even planted. “America’s corn crop might look like a sustainable, solarpowered system for producing food, but it is actually a huge, inefficient, polluting machine that guzzles
fossil fuel.” 61 While advocates for corn production would dispute this characterization of the industry as “inefficient” and “polluting,” it is
undeniable that conventional corn production techniques use large amounts of climate changeexacerbating fossil fuels. Conventional (non-organic) corn production techniques involve annual
applications of fertilizers and pesticides, both largely derived from fossil fuels. 62
Specifically, corn growth in the US lets off nitrous oxide which is 300 times worse than CO 2also runoff from these plants kills marine life in the Gulf of Mexico
Specht ’13- Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012
(Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, 36 UC Davis L. Rev. 182-183,
April 24 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) //CW
The process by which incentives for ethanol production change land use patterns and thereby impact
climate change, known as indirect land use change (ILUC), happens roughly as follows. 63 By increasing
demand for corn, corn based ethanol production drives up the price of corn. As the price of corn
increases, farmers want to grow more of it. By making corn more appealing to farmers to grow than other crops, and thereby
increasing national levels of corn production, the corn-based ethanol industry makes the negative environmental
effects of corn production more widespread. Conventional corn-growing techniques involve applying
more pesticides and fertilizers to corn than is usually applied to other row crops such as soybeans. 64
This effect is exacerbated when high corn prices disincentivize crop rotation. 65 A common technique in American
agriculture today is rotating corn and soybeans. 66 Because soybeans are a nitrogen-fixing crop (that is, they take nitrogen out of the
atmosphere and release it into the soil), corn
grown on land that was used to grow soybeans the year before
requires a lesser input of nitrogen fertilizer. By boosting the price of corn relative to other crops like
soybeans, however, the domestic ethanol industry encourages farmers to use the same piece of land to
grow corn year after year. Growing corn on the same land in successive years rather than rotating it with
soybeans significantly increases the climate change effects of corn production because “nitrogen
fertilizer applications are typically fifty pounds per acre higher for corn planted after corn” and “nitrous
oxide has a global warming potential more than 300 times that of [carbon dioxide].” 67 Additionally, the
application of fossil fuel-derived nitrogen fertilizer has other environmental impacts beyond
exacerbating climate change. The collective nitrogen runoff of the Mississippi River basin has caused a
process called hypoxia, which kills off most marine life, in a region of the Gulf of Mexico. Scientists have
linked the so-called Dead Zone to corn production and, thus, to the domestic ethanol industry. 68
Increased corn production destroys wetlands and prairies- kills bio-D and exacerbates
warming
Specht ’13- Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012
(Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, 36 UC Davis L. Rev. 185-188,
April 24 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) //CW
Increased corn production is degrading two environmentally significant habitats in the Great Plains,
grasslands and wetlands. According to The Nature Conservancy, “grasslands and prairies are the world’s
most imperiled ecosystem.” 82 While grasslands once stretched across the entire central portion of the United States, it has lost
between eighty-three and ninety-nine percent of its original tall grass prairie habitat. 83 U.S. grasslands
are the native habitat of a number of threatened and endangered species, such as the greater prairie
chicken, 84 which cannot live in cornfields. 85 In addition to reducing the overall amount of habitat
available to native species, the process of plowing grassland to grow crops fragments habitat by splitting
it into disconnected segments. 86 The negative effects on wildlife of converting grasslands to cornfields,
and thereby also fragmenting what habitat remains, are well-documented. “[I]n counties with high corn
[production] increases, the average number of grassland [bird] species was found to decline significantly from
2005 to 2008.” 87 Furthermore, in addition to providing habitat for wildlife, grasslands act as a carbon
sink, keeping centuries’ worth of accumulated atmospheric carbon in underground root systems. 88
When native grassland is plowed to grow crops like corn, the carbon stored in its soil is released into the
atmosphere, further exacerbating climate change and counterbalancing the greenhouse gas benefits of
replacing fossil fuel-based gasoline with corn-based ethanol. 89 Taken together, the environmental costs of
increasing domestic corn-based ethanol production by plowing native grasslands in the Great Plains
starkly outweigh their benefits. “Plowing up our nation’s last remnants of native grasslands to grow more corn for ethanol is like
burning the Mona Lisa for firewood.” 90 Along with grasslands, wetlands are the other major habitat type in the Great
Plains that are being damaged by the domestic corn-based ethanol industry. The draining of wetlands to convert
them to agricultural production is a practice in American agriculture that predates the domestic ethanol industry. 91 This trend has been
exacerbated by a number of legal and policy factors unrelated to ethanol production (including a 2001 Supreme Court decision interpreting the
Clean Water Act). 92 To
the extent that it increases demand for corn and thus the price of corn, however, the
domestic ethanol industry is clearly a factor driving the conversion of wetlands to corn production. This
conversion process is a land use change with wide-ranging environmental consequences. The Prairie
Pothole region of the Dakotas and surrounding states — which is composed of a mixture of grasslands
and wetlands — is a habitat of international significance. 93 Nearly forty percent of all species of
migratory birds in North America — over 300 species — utilize this habitat at some point in their life
cycles or yearly migrations. 94 The region is where “millions of ducks and geese are born each year.” 95
The two greatest threats to North American ducks are the destruction of wetlands and the degradation
of prairies, both of which are being driven by the expansion of U.S. corn production. 96 In addition to providing
habitat for wildlife, both grasslands and wetlands help to clean up pollution and prevent flooding. 97 “Those
areas with native vegetation, and the soils beneath their surface, also retain the water longer
throughout the season and use up the water through evapotranspiration.” 98 Thus, converting grasslands
and wetlands to cropland for corn increases the risk of flooding. 99 Taken together, the consequences of
converting grasslands and wetlands in the Great Plains to increase corn production for the domestic
ethanol industry are devastating. If we proceed along the current trajectory without changing federal
policies [including those promoting corn-based ethanol], the prairie pothole ecosystem may be further
degraded and fragmented, and the many services it provides will be impossible to restore. The region
will no longer be able to support the waterfowl cherished by hunters and wildlife enthusiasts across the country.
Grassland bird populations, already declining, will be unable to rebound as nesting sites are turned into
row crops. Water will become increasingly polluted and costly to clean as the grasslands and wetlands
that once filtered contaminants disappear. 100
--AT: BRAZIL SUGAR ETHANOL
Brazilian sugar ethanol is terrible for the environment
Specht ’13- Legal Advisor, Pearlmaker Holsteins, Inc. B.A., Louisiana State University, 2009; J.D., Washington University in St. Louis 2012
(Jonathan, “Raising Cane: Cuban Sugarcane Ethanol’s Economic and Environmental Effects on the United States”, 36 UC Davis L. Rev. 188-190,
April 24 2013, http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/36/2/specht.pdf) //CW
If future legislation does not revive the United States ethanol tariff that expired at the end of 2011 and the trade embargo against Cuba is kept
in place, Brazil will likely be the primary beneficiary. 109 The
argument can be made that Brazilian sugarcane-based
ethanol is a more environmentally beneficial fuel source than domestic-corn based ethanol, because of
the nature of sugarcanebased ethanol (discussed below). 110 Brazilian sugarcane-based ethanol comes,
however, with its own set of environmental consequences. The full debate over the environmental consequences of the
Brazilian biofuel production 111 is largely beyond the scope of this Article. Still, the primary issue in this dispute is worth noting, because it
accentuates one of the most significant differences between the U.S. corn-based ethanol industry and the potential Cuban sugarcane-based
ethanol industry. In
Brazil, the expansion of sugarcane production to meet demand for ethanol production
has led to land use changes that parallel the expansion of corn production for ethanol in the United
States. Clearing portions of the Amazon rainforest — one of the most significant repositories of carbon
on Earth 112 — would represent an environmental cost of ethanol production that outweighs its
benefits. The Amazon region, however, is largely unsuitable for sugarcane production. 113 But,
sugarcane production is contributing to destruction of another sensitive habitat, the bio-diverse Cerrado
savannah region of Brazil. 114
SOLVENCY / MECHANISM DEFENSE
AT: CUBA SAYS NO
Cuba will say yes – it needs desperately needs new capital to aid economic reforms
Iglesias, 12 – Commander, US Navy. Paper submitted for the Master of Strategic Studies Degree at the
the US Army War College (Carlos, “United States Security Policy Implications of a Post-Fidel Cuba”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA560408) GOC = Government of Cuba, FAR = Cuban
military
For Cuba, the destitute economy can wait no longer. The Cuban Minister of
Economy and Planning, Marino Murillo, candidly admitted as much in 2010, “the gigantic
paternalistic state can no longer be, because there is no longer a way to maintain it.”75 This confession
that the country is in ruins was confirmed to be literally true by a University of Miami study which
uncovered “that in Havana alone an estimated 300 buildings collapse every year, and that about
100,000 residents there live in unsafe structures. Highways, utilities and sewage systems, water mains,
and other critical infrastructure are in advanced stages of disrepair.”76
This national disrepair signals an immense latent demand for infrastructure
rehabilitation. The magnitude of the need for public goods developments
alone is staggering. One estimate assessed the requirements at just over $8
billion.77 FDI at these levels would be most welcomed by U.S. capital and if
invested, would help prime the Cuban economic engine. 24
Raul wants economic engagement with the US
LeoGrande, 13 - professor in the Department of Government, School of Public Affairs at American
University in Washington, D.C. (William, “The Danger of Dependence: Cuba's Foreign Policy After
Chavez” World Politics Review, 4/2, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12840/the-danger-ofdependence-cubas-foreign-policy-after-chavez)
In Cuba, Raúl Castro's historic economic reforms are moving the island toward a mixed
socialist economy, and incipient political decompression is allowing more space for open debate. These
changes, undertaken in response to domestic necessity rather than U.S. demands, are nevertheless
moving Cuba in directions long cited by Washington as necessary for better
relations. To exert any positive influence on the trajectory of Cuba's evolution, however, Washington
has to engage not just with Cuban society but with Cuba's government.
Eager to put Cuba on a more solid footing before passing the torch to the next
generation of leaders, Raúl Castro seems genuinely interested in opening talks with
Washington. Unlike his older brother, Raúl did not make his political
career by mobilizing nationalist sentiment against the United States. He has a
strong incentive to settle this conflict so he can focus on renovating the
Cuban economy and open it up to U.S. trade and investment.
AT: PIC OUT OF NORMAL TRADE
Normal Trade Relations is vital – no trade occurs without it
French, 9 – editor of and a frequent contributor to The Havana Note. She has led more than two dozen
research trips to Cuba (Anya, “Options for Engagement A Resource Guide for Reforming U.S. Policy
toward Cuba” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Cuba/USPolicy/optionsfor-engagement.pdf)
the path to “normal” trade relations
If the United States were to lift its trade embargo against Cuba, this would not
automatically confer “normal” status to the bilateral trade relationship. It
would mean that the United States and Cuba have the opportunity to begin trading in more goods and
services than they have in the last fifty years. Whether much expanded trade actually occurs
depends on whether the United States were to take additional steps beyond lifting the embargo:
the most important of which is the provision of Normal Trade Relations (NTR).
NTR is a technical term which refers to the provision of nondiscriminatory
treatment toward trading partners. Cuba and North Korea are the only two countries to
which the United States continues to deny “normal trade relations.” All other countries either have
permanent normal trade relations or temporary, renewable normal trade relations with the United
States.161
Assuming that the Cuba-specific trade sanctions contained in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (the
continuity of which was codified by the 1996 Helms-Burton Act) were to be eliminated, achieving normal
trade relations between Cuba and the United States would not be a simple matter. A first stumbling
block could be the 1974 Trade Act provision dubbed “Jackson-Vanik,” which prohibits non-market
economy countries from receiving normal tariff treatment, entering into a bilateral commercial
agreement, or receiving any U.S. government credits or loan guarantees, until the President has
reported to Congress that such a country does not: 1) deny its citizens the right to emigrate, 2) impose
an unreasonable tax or fine for emigrating, and 3) impose more than a “nominal tax, levy, fine, fee or
other charge on any citizen as a consequence of the desire of such citizen to emigrate to the country of
his choice.”162
Thus, Cuba’s restrictions on its citizens’ emigration rights pose an obstacle to normalization of bilateral
trade. Only once the requirements set forth by the Jackson-Vanik amendment have been met, (and
absent any other Cuba-specific sanctions, such as the Export Administration Act controls on countries
found to be supporting international terrorism), could the United States begin negotiations of a bilateral
commercial agreement with Cuba.
To begin to extend normal trade relations to Cuba, the United States would need to enter
into a reciprocal trade agreement with Cuba (not equivalent to a “free trade
agreement”) that would provide a balance of trade benefits and protections to
U.S. exports and commercial entities doing business with Cuba, at the same
time it would provide such benefits to Cuba. Such an agreement would need to include
protection for U.S. patents and trademarks and for “industrial rights and processes,” include a safeguard
mechanism to prevent market disruptions due to trade, and provide that the agreement, and its
continuation, be subject to the national security interests of both parties.163 Assuming bilateral
relations had reached the appropriate milestones to begin discussing two-way trade, negotiating such
an agreement could potentially take years, as both countries would need to adopt statutory and
regulatory changes.
Raul demands ‘normal trade’ – nothing short of it works
French, 9 – editor of and a frequent contributor to The Havana Note. She has led more than two dozen
research trips to Cuba (Anya, “Options for Engagement A Resource Guide for Reforming U.S. Policy
toward Cuba” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Cuba/USPolicy/optionsfor-engagement.pdf)
In an interview given last fall, Raul Castro put “normal trade” at the top of his agenda.
On the economic front, the Cuban government would likely want every aspect of the
trade embargo on the table (as well as the damage Cuba maintains it has done to the island’s
economy), including bans on Cuban imports, foreign assistance, financing restrictions on current U.S.
exports to Cuban buyers, and intellectual property rights protection.
Lifting the embargo doesn’t spur trade – normal trade relations is key
Rennack, 5 – Atlantic Council of the United States (Dianne, “U.S.-Cuban Relations: An Analytic
Compendium of U.S. Policies, Laws & Regulations”
http://www.acus.org/files/publication_pdfs/65/2005-03-U.S.-Cuban_Relations.pdf)
As noted in Section II, in addition to the overall embargo on trade with Cuba, there are
other provisions in U.S. trade law that would limit U.S. trade with Cuba
even if the overall embargo were terminated. Cuba is denied
nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) pursuant
to Section 401 of the Trade Act of 1974 until certain conditions are met, including the
liberalization of emigration polices and the negotiation of a 3-year bilateral trade agreement with the
United States. Under current regulations, Cuba is denied normal trade relations treatment pursuant to
General Headnote 3(b) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. In order to extend
normal trade relations treatment to Cuba, legislation would have to be
enacted authorizing the President to determine that Cuba should no longer be subject to Title IV and
then authorizing the President to proclaim the extension of normal trade
relations treatment to Cuba. Alternately, legislation could be enacted explicitly terminating
the application of Title IV with regard to Cuba, amending General Headnote 3(b) of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States to eliminate Cuba from that category and stating that normal trade
relations treatment shall apply to Cuba.
NORMAL TRADE KT STOP VENEZUELA/CUBA
Full normalization key to stop regional security threats--checks back against Iranian,
Venezuelan and Chinese power posturing
Curtain 08, Joseph W. Curtain Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy B.A., The George Washington
University, 1995(Joseph, "ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REASONS WHY THE U.S. SHOULD NORMALIZE
RELATIONS WITH CUBA" June 2008, Naval Postgraduate School,
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=
s&frm=1&source=web&cd=25&ved=0CFIQFjAEOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgibin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA483591&ei=OJDkUf31MYWs
4AO4u4HoCw&usg=AFQjCNERlk9ytA35TzX2LBDxkYIRbYbHlQ&sig2=Ojq4louyvD3XNz3TAp5Qnw)//AD
Cuban dependence on Venezuela and Venezuela’s subsequent leverage over Cuba are aided and
Venezuela has in effect
replaced the role the U.S. would have played in a post Soviet Union
globalized Cuban economy. Certainly Hugo Chavez is best known for his incessant and irreverent
anti-imperialist rhetoric which makes him, at times, hard to take seriously. However a close look at his actions reveals what seems to
be a deliberate plan to pose a significant threat to the U.S. A quick rundown of the facts are as
follows: Chavez has recently spent $5 billion to create the strongest military in
Latin America, Venezuela is one of Cuba’s top creditors, Cuba’s debt to
Venezuela is $2.5 billion and rising, and the Cuban military is helping
abetted by the U.S. – Cuban embargo.
Due to the embargo’s trade restrictions,
complete Chavez’s transformation of the Venezuelan military. This military
buildup could be explained away by Chavez’s right to build up his military
for national defense purposes or it could also be a harbinger of a future security
threat . It is possible that Chavez might be tempted to initiate a “Falklands-like conflict by using his new arsenal to pursue Venezuelan
land claims against neighboring Colombia, Guyana, and Holland which
controls the Dutch Antilles...[or] be tempted to grab the massive oil and
natural gas reserves of nearby Trinidad and Tobago.” In such a scenario,
Cuba’s strategic positioning and Iran’s military experience, weapons and
training would be invaluable for an attack on the smaller island forces and
against the U.S. which would be compelled to defend them. Cuba magnifies
not only the threat posed by Venezuela to the United States but also that
posed by Iran and Venezuela together. Iran is producing enough enriched
uranium for it have enough to be capable of producing nuclear weapons by
2013. According to The New York Times columnist Simon Romero, Venezuela has “expressed explicit support” for Iran’s uranium enrichment program. In
addition, Chavez has stated his intentions to pursue a “peaceful” nuclear program and has sought Iran’s help in building a nuclear reactor in Venezuela. There are
even rumors that “Iranian scientists may already be working at uranium mines in [Venezuela’s] lower Orinoco River basin. Add that to Chavez’s increasing influence
over Cuba and the
prospects are even more foreboding.
When the Cuban missile crisis occurred, most analysts and policy makers did not
the U.S. is
fighting a war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan while Iran is extremely
close to becoming a nuclear power and Chavez is close to having enough
leverage in Cuba to pull off Cuban missile crisis part II. C. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT How can the U.S.
minimize the triangular threat posed by Iran, Venezuela and Cuba? How can this cycle of dependency, control and power be broken? Probably one of the
easiest solutions is normalizing relations with Cuba. The U.S. could be processing nickel or drilling for
oil in Cuba. The U.S. could easily surpass the E.U. and China and lead all other
countries in aggregate trade with Cuba. With U.S. capital flowing through
the Cuban economy, it could in time replace Cuba’s dependency on
Venezuela and thereby effectively negate Chavez’s influence. Given normalized relations with Cuba, if Chavez were able to create a Venezuelan –
Cuban confederation, it would be in name only. And by normalizing relations with Cuba, the
triangular threat would be minimized to isolated and separate threats from
Iran and Venezuela. The normalization of relations is more likely to be possible now that at any time in the past with the ascendance to the
see it coming. The U.S.’s attention was divided by the Vietnam War and the struggle against the spread of communism. Today,
presidency of Raul Castro. Raul has offered to negotiate with the U.S. on several occasions. On August 16 2006, shortly after Fidel 7 liberalized the economy only
because he had to and backtracked on reforms that made economic sense if he thought they would affect his stranglehold on power. Raul’s reforms, in contrast,
have been implemented not in response to economic desperation – the economy is doing fine – but out of a firm belief in the value of economic liberalization (a
position he has long held). As a result, the prospect of economic liberalization leading to political change is much higher under Raul’s term in office than it was
under his brother’s term in office. The overarching problem facing the next President is that even if all of the mitigating factors that explain Cuba’s current
transition were seen as plausible reasons to change the U.S.’s policy towards Cuba, he would not be able to change the policy. Under the Helms-Burton Act, the
President can only takes steps to “suspend” the embargo after consulting with Congress once a “transition government” is in place and can only take steps to
“terminate” the embargo once a democratically elected government is in power.147 Additionally, the President would have to report the status of Cuba’s progress
toward meeting the requirements of a democratically elected regime to Congress every six months.148 The time between suspension and termination could
conceivably be indefinite because termination is predicated on Cuba electing a democratic government as defined by Section 206, “Requirements for Determining a
Democratically Elected Government.” Most of the requirements are simply a reiteration of Section 205 (e.g., free and fair elections, respect for civil liberties,
progress toward a market economy and progress towards an independent judiciary),149 but the last one would more than likely be a deal breaker. Line item 6
stipulates that Cuba must make: demonstrable progress in returning to United States citizens (and entities which are 50 percent or more beneficially owned by
United States citizens) property taken by the Cuban Government from such citizens and entities on or after January 1, 1959, or providing full compensation for such
property in accordance with international law standards and practice.150 The problem with this line item is the same problem that comes along with defining
“transition government”—the language is definitive, there is no room for compromise, and the terms are unconditional. Raul’s offer to negotiate would more than
likely include trying to come to an agreement about how to either “return” property or more than likely find ways to compensate those whose property was
expropriated by the Revolution. But with no wiggle room for negotiation, it is certainly possible that the this line item alone could preclude the termination of the
embargo. Thus, it can be said that Cuba’s economy shows no sign of the collapse necessary for an overthrow of Raul’s communist regime and the triangular threat
posed by the Venezuela, Iran and China vis-à-vis Cuba will continue to get stronger in time as long as the U.S. continues its embargo. And since the President’s
executive power is rendered all but useless due to Helms-Burton’s restrictions, before the President can do anything to change the policy, the Helms-Burton Act
must be repealed. Or alternatively, what Congress has done, Congress must undo. Currently the 110th Congress is considering several initiatives that would ease
sanctions. Some of those resolutions are: H.R. 177 (educational travel), H.R. 216 (Cuban baseball players), H.R. 217 and H.R. 624 (overall sanctions), H.R. 654, S. 554,
and S. 721 (travel), H.R. 757 (family travel and remittances), H.R. 1026 (sale of U.S. agricultural products), H.R. 2819/S. 1673 (sale of U.S. agricultural and medical
products and travel), and S. 1268 (development of Cuba’s offshore oil). S. 554 also would terminate U.S.-government sponsored television broadcasting to Cuba.
Several initiatives would tighten sanctions: H.R. 525 (related to U.S. fugitives in Cuba), and H.R. 1679/S. 876 (related to Cuba’s offshore oil development)151 These
initiatives range from waiving restrictions on Cuban nationals coming to U.S. to play baseball (H.R. 216), to the lifting of family travel and remittances restrictions
(H.R. 757), to the lifting of most of the economic restrictions (H.R. 624). Though these initiatives seem to perceive the need for a change in policy, they will all more
than likely fail to get through both houses without a 2/3 majority; just like the slew of previous initiatives that have tried and failed to do the same thing. That
brings the discussion back to the presidential candidates and the future president elect. While Senator Obama supports a relaxing of travel and remittances
restrictions as a carrot to the embargo’s stick, he stops short of advocating immediate direct negotiations with the Cuban government. McCain does not support a
change in policy until the Cuban government proves that it can meet democratic benchmarks. Neither advocates the repeal of the Helms-Burton Act. Thus it is not
surprising that congressional legislation to ease sanctions fails to become enacted year after year. If the policy towards Cuba is to change, it will be because of the
The president will have to stop viewing Cuban foreign
policy from a Cold War realist perspective shaped by the Helms-Burton
Act’s logic and definition of transition government. Instead, he or she will
have to acknowledge that: 1) Raul Castro’s regime is not going to be toppled
by U.S. economic sanctions; and 2) the growing security threat posed by
Venezuela, Iran and China is facilitated by the embargo. Then the president would have to
vision and the leadership of the next president.
articulate the urgency for a change in policy directly to the American people and create a congressional majority to support a change in policy. Raul Castro’s regime
has implemented a series of “democratic” and economic reforms since taking over the reigns of the Cuban government. The next president has the opportunity to
seize upon Cuba’s current “transition” by using his or her mandate to get Congress to repeal the Helms-Burton Act and restore executive power with respect to
Cuban policy. Then the negotiation process can begin with the Cuban government and the democracy that the embargo and the Helms-Burton Act have failed to
attain can be achieved.
NORMAL TRADE KT SUGAR / ECONOMY
Normalized trade relations sustains US-Cuban economic growth and energy cooperation
Gerz-Escandon 2008- independent scholar and former professor of political science based in
Atlanta.(Jennifer, “End the US-Cuba embargo: It's a win-win. Normalizing ties would be smart policy and
politics”, 10/9/08, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1009/p09s02coop.html)//KW
Bringing an end to the decades-old US-Cuba embargo is no longer just a noble but hopeless idea.
Conditions have changed to the point where restoring normal economic ties would make for
smart policy – and savvy politics.
Even as Cubans recover from hurricanes Gustav and Ike, their desire to end the embargo remains
strong. In rejecting a modest initial offer of US aid on Sept. 4, Cuban President Raúl Castro called instead
for the whole enchilada of normalized economic relations. The United States is equally resolute in its
nearly 50-year-old opposition to the socialist dictatorship. As simply put by the CATO Institute,
Washington's chief rationale for the embargo has been to "compel a democratic transformation" in
Cuba.
Yet common ground exists. In broad terms, both sides want national security and economic opportunity.
Now is the time to pursue those shared interests. Mutually beneficial opportunities in three
areas – agricultural trade, energy development, and immigration – could
provide the foundation for a postembargo relationship.
For years, US farmers have lobbied Congress – only somewhat successfully – to open Cuban markets,
which are lucrative and feature low transportation costs. Both sides could realize benefits from greater
liberalization: relaxed payment options for cash-strapped Cuba and the end of licenses and quotas for
US farmers. Despite the embargo, the US is Cuba's largest supplier of food and its sixth-largest trading
partner.
Secondly, direct US engagement could allow two of the nation's largest revenue generators,
the Cuban nickel and sugar industries, to expand into more capital-intensive
energy research through university and private-sector partnerships.
Most Cuban exports are currently destined for Canada, China, or the
Netherlands as raw or lightly refined materials. Yet, with funding for technology and
without the fear of embargo-based repercussions from the US, Cuban research
opportunities and export products could have the potential to diversify.
By gaining the freedom and cooperative assistance to make this transition, Cuba could address its own
energy dependence while leap-frogging years ahead on modernization. For starters, Cuba could
explore the sugar-bioenergy market and the energy-related uses of nickel.
Given the abundance of well-trained but under-employed Cuban engineers, the ingredients for a perfect
storm of innovation are already present.
For its part, by ending the embargo, the US simultaneously gains security
through stability in Cuba. More important, by investing in the future prototype
for emerging markets – a 42,803-square-mile green energy and technology lab called Cuba –
America gains a dedicated partner in the search for energy independence.
TRADE STATUS KT CUBAN REFORMS
Granting preferential trade status to Cuban agricultural exports spurs Cuban economic reform
Ashby, 11 - , a Florida-based attorney, is CEO of Federal Regulatory Compliance Services and Counsel
with the International law firm SNR Denton. He served at the US Commerce Department, International
Trade Administration, as Director of the Office of Mexico and the Caribbean and acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for the Western Hemisphere (Timothy, States News Service, “HELPING CUBAN REFORMS
THROUGH AGRICULTURAL TRADE”, 11/22, lexis)
Cuba's private farmers are an entrepreneurial class with growing disposable income. Cuba buys
imported foreign goods, including new automobiles (now also legal), and are eager to sell its agricultural
products to the United States. Sadly, Cuban agricultural products are still banned from import into the
USA. Cuban private farmers and businessmen think this is ironic considering that the U.S. has exported
nearly USD four billion worth of food and agricultural products to Cuba since 2001.
While the U.S. will undoubtedly seek to help stabilize Cuba economically when relations are ultimately
normalized, it will be constrained by Washington's massive budget deficit and significantly reduced
foreign aid allocations. Official U.S. policy is to encourage the growth of Cuba's private sector as a means
of developing democratic institutions.
The U.S. government could concretely help the development of Cuba's
private sector - at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer by introducing legislation that would
allow preferential market access for Cuban agricultural products before the
official end of the trade embargo against Havana. This most likely would require
that the U.S. implement preferential (including protected) trade access for
the island's products, which are of agricultural origin and would not compete with products
traditionally grown in the U.S.
The U.S. has a history of providing development assistance and preferential trade access to developing
countries, particularly to its Latin American and Caribbean neighbors. Several existing programs offer
special access to the U.S. market for certain agricultural and manufactured goods from developing
countries. Specifically, the U.S. has developed a Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), in addition to
several regional preferential trade programs, such as the Caribbean Basin Initiative, the Andean Trade
Preference program and the African Growth and Opportunity program.
The President retains ultimate decision-making authority as to which countries and products are eligible
for GSP status. There are certain mandatory criteria that countries must measure up to in order to be
considered eligible for GSP treatment. Of particular interest with respect to Cuba, communist countries
are not eligible for GSP treatment "unless the country receives Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status , is a
World Trade Organization (WTO) member and a member of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and
is not dominated by international communism."[1] In addition, a GSP beneficiary "may not have
nationalized, expropriated or otherwise seized property of U.S. citizens or corporations without
providing, or taking steps to provide, prompt, adequate and effective compensation, or submitting such
issues to a mutually agreed forum for arbitration."[2]
While certain products from Cuba would certainly be eligible for GSP status, the mandatory country
requirements present additional hurdles for preferential trade treatment for Havana to qualify outside
of the current political climate. However, these are not insurmountable. For example, Cuba repeatedly
has offered to negotiate the settlement of claims for expropriated U.S. property, and since the demise
of the Soviet Union, could not be considered to be dominated by "international communism".
In addition to the GSP, the U.S. also has implemented several regional preferential trade programs for
certain Central American and Caribbean countries known collectively as the Caribbean Basin Initiative
(CBI). Much like the GSP, the CBI was intended to encourage economic development and export
diversification throughout the countries of the Caribbean Basin by providing trade and tariff benefits.
However, such benefits were denied to any country deemed to be under the control of communists.
President Clinton signed the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in 2000 to increase trade and
investment with Sub-Sahara Africa. In addition, the program sought to "stimulate economic growth, to
promote a high-level dialogue on trade and investment-related issues, to encourage economic
integration, and to facilitate sub-Saharan Africa's integration into the global economy." As of now, 38
sub-Saharan African countries are eligible for preferential treatment under the AGOA. In addition to the
4,600 products already eligible for the GSP, the AGOA adds 1,800 products which may receive favorable
treatment from this category of countries. Most agricultural products are included in these lists.
AGOA beneficiaries are eligible for substantial trade preferences that, in addition to the preferences
provided by the GSP, permit marketable goods produced in AGOA countries to enter the U.S. duty-free.
The U.S. government, in seeking to encourage and assist AGOA countries, established four regional
trade hubs through which it provides assistance to governments and businesses seeking to export to the
U.S. market.
Similar to other preferential trade programs, the U.S. President determines on an annual basis whether
sub-Saharan countries are eligible for their participation based on certain criteria. Such criteria, including
the demonstration of progress toward the creation of a market-based economy, the establishment of
the rule of law, and the enactment of beneficial economic policies to reduce poverty, protect
internationally recognized worker rights and fight corruption. Given these criteria, Cuba could be eligible
for an AGOA-type of preferential program for its agricultural exports.
Both the U.S. and Cuba were parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the
predecessor of the WTO. In 1962, the Cuban government was notified that the GATT would impose
economic sanctions pursuant to Article XXI of the GATT, Security Exceptions. The U.S. invoked this article
to revoke Cuba's preferential sugar tariff and access to the U.S. market. As a result, the U.S. denied
Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) status to Cuba.
MFN is a guiding principle of the GATT. It requires that member countries not discriminate in the way in
which they treat WTO partners. Article I of the GATT states "any advantage, favour, privilege or
immunity granted by any contracting party to any product originating in or destined for any other
country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product originating in or destined
for the territories of all other contracting parties.
The U.S. is currently exempt from having to provide the MFN status to Cuba
pursuant to Article XXI. However, if the U.S. were to resume normal trade relations
with Cuba, it would be required to extend Cuba to no less favorable
treatment than is given to every other country in the WTO, pursuant to this
MFN principle. Article II of the GATT states, Each contracting party shall accord to the commerce of
the other contracting parties treatment no less favorable than that provided for in the appropriate Part
of the appropriate Schedule annexed to this agreement.[3] Thus, the U.S. would be required to provide
Cuba with the MFN rate of duty provided in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS).
It follows that the granting of MFN status to Cuba would result in Cuba having
the same rights of access to the U.S. market as all other countries. In the
event that Cuba requests access to the sugar trade-rate quota (TRQ), the U.S.
would be required to comply with this request pursuant to the WTO rule that all countries
with a "substantial interest in supplying a product' be allocated a portion of the TRQ.'"
To date, the WTO has used the "10% share" rule to establish a "substantial interest."[4] This means that
countries with the ability to service at least 10 percent of the import market are to be considered for
allocation. In addition, if countries that supply less than 10 percent of the import market are given a
portion of the TRQ, then all countries capable of providing any portion of the import market share are to
be considered. The U.S. has historically assigned part of the TRQ to countries that provided less than 1
percent of the import share. Thus, even if Cuba is unable to provide 10 percent of the market for sugar,
it would still be considered to have a "substantial interest" and thus would be granted access to the
TRQ.
At this point, the U.S. would have several options to determine the TRQ for Cuban sugar and other
products. As there have been no recent official trade statistics, the U.S. could argue that there was little
recent history on which to base an appropriate TRQ allocation for Cuban products. The U.S. could then
open a competitive bidding process to reset country-specific quotas or it could simply reduce current
TRQs and provide a portion of the market share to Cuba. It could also increase the overall TRQ for
certain products.
As the U.S. has implemented several broad preferential trade programs
aimed at increasing economic development throughout the developing
world, it seems likely that Cuba could be included in such a program upon
the resumption of normal trade relations. The trend seems to be to enter into such
bilateral or regional free trade agreements as a means of reducing barriers to trade within the principles
of the GATT and WTO.
Cuba would also presumably be eligible for membership in the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would allow preferential access to Cuban
agricultural products.
The U.S. historically has been among the world's foremost proponents of free trade. It therefore seems
unjust that we freely export billions of dollars of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba, yet ban its imports
even though it are largely produced by the private sector. A strong argument could therefore be made
that the best means of assisting Cuba at minimal cost to the U.S. would be to
implement preferential (including protected) trade access for the island's
products which are of agricultural origin and would not compete with
products actually grown in the U.S.
AT: CONDITIONS CP – TOP LEVEL
Cuba will use the condition to veto the plan
Ratliff, 9 - Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and a member of the Board of Advisors of the
Institute’s Center on Global Prosperity. He is also a Research Fellow and Curator of the Americas
Collection at the Hoover Institution (William, “Why and How to Lift the U.S. Embargo on Cuba”, 5/7,
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2496)
How has the embargo failed? It has not brought down the Castro brothers,
advanced democracy, freedom, human rights or prosperity in Cuba, or
gotten compensation for Americans whose assets Cuba seized decades ago.
It largely denies Americans the freedom to travel to Cuba, or to trade freely and otherwise interact
Cubans on the island.
And in recent decades it has given Fidel the scapegoat he needs—us—to excuse his
economic utopianism and brutality.
Supporters of the embargo see it as an expression of America’s moral indignation at Castro’s brutal
policies. By limiting the flow of dollars to Cuba we deny some funds to Cuban security forces, as they
argue, but we simultaneously withhold support for the daily lives of the Cuban people.
For twenty years the embargo placated the very noisy Cuban American community in Florida, but by late
2008 even a majority of Cuban Americans, according to a Florida International University poll, had
turned against it. It isn’t that Cuban Americans are going soft on Fidel, but that a majority finally see or
admit that this policy is more harmful than positive to its own interests.
And it is harmful to U.S. interests as well, which ought to be our primary concern, alienating the
Hemisphere and the world as a whole while having only negative impacts in Cuba.
The Cuban American National Foundation, long the epicenter of anti-Castroism in the United States,
recently admitted that for many years the embargo has been “little beyond posturing for domestic
electoral purposes.”
How can we best end this policy with a minimum of confrontation, frustration and delay?
The only way we can keep full control of the process is by lifting it unilaterally .
The State Department recently lauded the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. “It
has long been and remains the position of the United States that normalization should take place
without preconditions,” State said. So why not between the United States and Cuba, where the pain of
the past hardly equals that of Turkey and Armenia?
Is Castro a brutal dictator? Sure, but his atrocities are hardly worse than those of Robert Mugabe, the
thug who rules Zimbabwe, a country we recognize.
The United States demands more concessions from Cuba for recognition than
from any other country in history. In fact, the Helms Burton Act is blatantly imperialistic, in
the spirit of the Platt Amendment to the Monroe Doctrine a century ago, which poisoned U.S. relations
with Cuba for decades.
Negotiations without preconditions, which Obama says he supports, are the next best though
potentially deeply flawed approach. Informal discussions between U.S. and Cuban diplomats already are
underway. If Cuban pragmatists, including President Raul Castro, can over-ride Fidel’s anti-American
passions, perhaps the United States, if we are very flexible, and Cuba can work out a step-by-step, facesaving plan to reduce tensions and normalize relations.
The Obama administration got off to a positive start by dropping the misguided 2004
Bush administration restrictions on remittances and travel to Cuba, but then in
public statements fell immediately into the trap of previous administrations by
demanding “reciprocity.”
This seems a just and reasonable demand, but in the propaganda-filled public arena it is
a game-stopper. In practical terms, the public demand for reciprocity hands
Cuba a veto over U.S. policy , which it has used before to short-circuit emerging
U.S. moderation. Cuba will never make tradeoffs on important matters so long as the core of the
basically flawed embargo remains in place.
Lifting the embargo would unleash a new dynamic and put full
responsibility for Cuban rights violations and economic failure squarely on
Cuba’s leaders where it belongs.
We can hope, but can’t guarantee, that ending the embargo will encourage real domestic reforms in
Cuba. We can guarantee that it will rid us of a demeaning, hypocritical and counterproductive policy.
Prior bad faith means they won’t trust the CP
Landau French, 13 - editor of and a frequent contributor to The Havana Note. She has led more than
two dozen research trips to Cuba. Landau French has published on U.S.-Cuban relations and Cuban
affairs for more than a decade (Anya, “Secretary Kerry: Will He or Won't He Take On Cuba?” 2/10, The
Havana Note, http://thehavananote.com/2013/02/secretary_kerry_will_he_or_wont_he_take_cuba)
And, then there’s the Cuban government. As much as many in the Cuban government
(particularly the diplomatic corps) want to reduce tensions with the United States and
finally make real progress on long-standing grievances held by both sides, they aren’t desperate
for the big thaw. Many U.S. analysts, including in government, speculate that this is because
Cuba’s leaders don’t really want to change the relationship, that strife serves
their needs better than would the alternative. That could be so, but there’s also a hefty
amount of skepticism and pride on the Cuban side, as well. After so many decades and
layers of what Cuba calls the U.S. blockade, Cubans are unwilling to have
the terms of any ‘surrender’ dictated to them. In fact, they are bound and
determined that there will be no surrender. They would argue, what is there to
surrender but their government’s very existence, something the leadership obviously isn’t going to put
on the table.
Many in the Cuban government question whether the U.S. would offer anything
that truly matters to Cuba, or honor any commitments made . Arguably, the last deal the U.S.
made good on was struck during the Missile Crisis of October 1963, and Cuba wasn’t
even at the table for that. It’s a lesser known fact that the United States never fully
implemented the 1994/1995 migration accords, which committed both nations to work
to prevent migration by irregular means. The U.S. did stop accepting illegal migrants from Cuba found at
sea, but it still accepts them when they reach our shores – thus dubbed our ‘wet foot, dry foot’ policy.
And with our generous adjustment policy offering a green card after one year, the incentive to make the
illegal trip remains largely in place.
Conditions spur Cuban nationalism – they’ll unite around rejection
Thale 8 – Program Director at the Washington Office on Latin America (Geoff, “Opting for
Engagement,” April 2008,
http://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/downloadable/Cuba/past/Opting%20for%20Engagement.pdf)//
SJF
Independence and national sovereignty have been consistent themes in
Cuba’s foreign relations since Fidel Castro came to power, and this is unlikely to change under Raul Castro. Foreign
governments who signal their acceptance of the political succession in Cuba
will not be able to demand political or economic change in Cuba as a condition for recognition .
Nonetheless, at a time when the Cuban government is re-examining aspects of its internal policies, other countries with
relations with Cuba – from the centrist and center-left governments of Europe, to Chavez and the government of Iran – will be
in a position to urge the new Cuban leadership to move in one direction or
another. Countries like the United States, with no contact with the Cuban
leadership and few contacts with Cuban society, will have no influence.
As long as the United States continues to isolate the island, the new government
will certainly continue to capitalize on proembargo rhetoric in the exile community or any other bold
actions by the U.S. that threaten Cuban sovereignty, in order to unite Cubans in
a nationalist rejection of interference in Cuban affairs.
Perm – do all of the plan and the part of the CP that adds a condition to US Cuba diplomacy –
lifting the embargo is an act of good faith that makes conditions more credible
Koenig, 10 – US Army Colonel, paper submitted for a Masters in Strategic Studies at the US Army War
College (Lance, “Time for a New Cuba Policy” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA518130)
The United States will gain leverage with the Cuban government as relations
improve, and that will be the time to address human rights in Cuba. The return of
the Cuban Five, a group of Cuban spies arrested and convicted in Florida, should be worth some human
rights concessions. In Cuba, these men are known as the “Cinco Heroes” and their plight is well
known.37
So what leverage do we have now that we have unilaterally given the Cuban
government most of what they have wanted? Offer to return back to Cuba
the Guantanamo Naval Base after the government of Cuba shifts towards a representative
orm of government. The foundation for this action has already been laid with the
Libertad Act. “The future of the Guantanamo base, a provision in the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act of 1996 states that once a democratically elected Cuban government is in place, United
States policy is to be prepared to enter into negotiations either to return the base to Cuba or to
renegotiate the present agreement under mutually agreeable terms.” 38 The United States Congress
should soften the language referring to a democratically elected government and instead substitute that
a representative form of government is required before entering into negotiations for the Guantanamo
base.
--XT – CUBAN VETO
Cuba says no – they don’t want the embargo lifted and they’ll use any excuse to torpedo
negotiations
Herrero, 12 – Deputy Executive Director of the Cuba Study Group (Ricardo, “Getting Serious About Alan
Gross” 12/27, Huffington Post, http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/ouropinions?ContentRecord_id=5516bfa4-2442-4e28-8ae6-292522cbd3e9&ContentType_id=15d701740c41-47c6-9bd5-cc875718b6c3&Group_id=4c543850-0014-4d3c-8f87-0cbbda2e1dc7)
For years we've known that the Cuban government is incredibly adept at
manipulating U.S. policy choices. Time and again, any attempt by the U.S. to
increase its engagement with the Cuban people has been met with confrontation
and repression by Cuban officials, which in turn emboldens hardliners in
the U.S. to call for the tightening economic sanctions. This pattern has become all
too predictable, and the Gross case is its latest example: arrested in Havana for bringing communication
devices to the island less than three months after President Obama relaxed family travel and remittance
restrictions in 2009 and only two weeks after the U.S. House held hearings on lifting the Cuba travel ban
for all Americans. In response to Gross' arrest, U.S. hardliners blocked any further normalization efforts
in Congress, though they weren't able to stop the Obama Administration from further loosening
restrictions on people-to-people travel and remittances in January, 2011. Shortly thereafter, Gross was
sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once said "It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want
to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the
United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn't happened in Cuba in the last
50 years." If we believe this to be the case, then why don't we use this insight to steer our efforts in
securing the release of Alan Gross?
Conditions creates a Cuban veto over U.S. policy change
Huddleston and Pascual, 10 – Brookings Institution (Vicki and Carlos, Learning to Salsa : New Steps in
U.S.-Cuba Relations, p. 76)
The Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs pointed out that Cuba might welcome lifting the
travel ban or even restoring people-to-people travel because of the revenues that U.S. travel would
generate. On the other hand, the United States should not be surprised if the Cuban
government did not respond positively to its initiatives. The Cuban hierarchy’s reaction
would be based on its ability to manage changes brought about by U.S. policy; the Cuban
leadership does not like surprises and would not welcome unexpected
actions that could challenge its control over the Cuban people. The Cuban
government’s priority would continue to be to remain in power and
preserve the Revolution. Ironically, however, many in the United States would see American
changes in policy as “concessions” and would anticipate and even demand that Cuba respond to these
“concessions” by giving Cubans more freedoms. If Cuba were to react negatively or fail to
release political prisoners, many would call on the administration to stop making
concessions. Thus, it would be best to avoid raising expectations by linking
U.S. actions to Cuban reactions, since doing so would in effect give Raúl
Castro a veto over U.S. policy. Raúl might well want to avoid an influx of U.S.
citizens, especially those working with NGOs, that would strengthen the ability of Cuban
organizations to expand the provision of services to their communities.
Conditions fail – Cuba says no because the embargo benefits the regime
Reinsch, 3-President of the National Foreign Trade Council, A group of businesses advocating free trade
and Co-Chairman of USA*Engage, a coalition of businesses against sanctions (William, “Statement of
William A. Reinsch, President of the National Foreign Trade Council & Co-Chairman of USA*Engage
Before the Senate Committee on Finance”, USA*Engage, 9/4/03.
http://archives.usaengage.org/literature/2003/20030904%20testimony%20to%20Senate%20Finance.ht
ml)//TL
Our basic position is simple. We believe the forty-year old U.S. economic embargo of Cuba is one of the
most dramatic failures of modern U.S. foreign policy: the regime it intended to undermine is as solidly in
power as ever; its leader rules with unchallenged arbitrary brutality; and its people remain economically
deprived and politically dispossessed
Instead, the United States is far more likely to achieve its objectives in Cuba through a policy of
engagement with Cuban society than continuing to isolate Cuba. People to people programs,
educational and cultural exchanges, and commercial engagement all hold out the promise of influencing
the future course of events in Cuba.
In contrast, the main achievement of our embargo has been to provide Fidel Castro with a blanket
excuse for his government's failures. Having chosen not to engage Cuba, the U.S. has abdicated the
possibility of influencing its development. This has resulted in a perverse dynamic that perpetuates and
deepens the stalemate: each time there is a prospect of improved relations, the Cuban government
takes an action which they know will prevent any change in U.S. policy , and each time we have
reacted exactly as Castro wants by tightening the embargo or stopping movement toward engagement.
Conditional offers allow the regime to refuse and maintain the embargo– unconditional
repeal is crucial to restore American influence and foster regime change
Holmes, 10– B.A. from Georgetown, Master’s Thesis (Michael G., June 21, 2010, “Seizing the Moment”,
https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553334/holmesMichael.pdf?seque
nce=1, pg. 60-63)//NG
Another area the war highlighted is the United States position as a diplomatic entity. There is a
looming cloud of skepticism and distrust of the United States shared by
many emerging nations and even some of its peer nations, and rightfully so.
What was sold to the world as a mission to bring to justice to the people
responsible for killing thousands of innocent American citizens, has evolved into an agenda
that most U.S. officials and politicians have a hard time articulating. In short
the United States’ reputation is tarnished. If the United States is ever to
regain the esteem it once held, it must address the state of its global image.
The United States has a unique opportunity to address the issue of alternative fuel and
repair its damaged image by altering its current policies toward Cuba. Cuba,
as a policy issue, has likely been off the foreign policy radar for quite sometime. However the
history between Cuba and the United States encompasses many of the
issues affecting foreign policy concerns today.
It goes without saying that the U.S. will have to take the lead in order to
accomplish this new movement. The embargo and all of the successive legislation aimed at
toppling the Castro regime, even if created out of provocation, has exacerbated the situation in Cuba.
The Castro regime has been able to exploit the existence of the embargo to
legitimize the relevancy of its rule.
There is no incentive for Raul Castro to seek change. Secretary of State Hilary
Clinton recently acknowledged this fact. The Castro regime’s reluctance to relinquish
its embrace of the embargo has been highlighted in the numerous quidpro-quo approaches that have failed in the past.
President George W. Bush’s 2002 Initiative for a New Cuba is an example of the failure of this type
approach. The President proclaimed that the purpose of the initiative was to
“accelerate freedom’s progress in Cuba in everyway possible.” In his speech
given on the centennial of Cuba’s independence President Bush stated that all the things
Cuba and its people need; good jobs, free trade, open investment, an improved standard of
living, a stable currency and a plethora of other social remedies, could all be obtained if the
Castro regime would adhere to the United States calls for democratic
reforms. Eight months later in January 2003, the Cuban National Assembly
essentially laughed in the face of President Bush and the U.S. government
by electing regime approved candidates to each of the 609 available seats.3
As stated previously, the sanctions imposed by the United States caused Cuba severe economic
hardship. This hardship was later exacerbated with the fall of the Soviet Union, which had provided
subsidies to the country after the U.S. cut ties. Any attempt to remedy Cuba's economic
situation can only perceived as a good faith effort. Americans and the global
public alike can only interpret removing the embargo sans conditions, as
the United States government acting for the greater good.
Political conditions strengthen Cuba’s siege mentality – makes it easy for them to say no
Cuba Study Group 13 – non partisan non for profit made up of business and professional
individuals with experience in Cuban US affairs (Cuba Study Group, Restoring Executive Authority Over
U.S. Policy Toward Cuba, Cuba Study Group, February 2013,
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7f2193cf-d2ef-45c8-91de0b1f88d30059)//BDS
Helms-Burton preconditions the lifting of its blanket sanctions on sweeping political change in Cuba. In
practice, this “waiting game” has strengthened the relative power of the Cuban
government vis-à-vis the Cuban people while simultaneously giving the former
a convenient scapegoat for its oppressive practices and economic blunders.
Cuban blogger and democracy advocate Yoani Sanchez best illustrated the impact of the “waiting game”
enabled by Helms-Burton when she wrote: “The five decade prolongation of the ‘blockade’ [as the
embargo is referred to in Cuba] has allowed every setback we’ve suffered to be explained as stemming
from it, justified by its effects...To make matters worse, the economic fence has helped to
fuel the idea of a place besieged, where dissent comes to be equated with an
act of treason. The exterior blockade has strengthened the interior
blockade.”ix
Former political prisoner and independent economist Oscar Espinosa Chepe agrees, writing that
Helms-Burton’s blanket sanctions have only served “…to give the Cuban
government an alibi to declare Cuba a fortress under siege, to justify
repression and to (pass) the blame for the economic disaster in Cuba.”x
Conditioning our policy of resource denial on sweeping political reforms
strengthens the Cuban state because the scarce resources available in an
authoritarian Cuba have been and will continue to be allocated primarily based on political
priorities, thereby increasing the state’s relative power and its ability to control
its citizens. History has shown that the negative effects of such isolation can be long lasting
and counterproductive to change. During the Cold War, U.S. policy toward Eastern Europe
was not based on isolation or resource denial. Indeed, an analysis of these transitions reveals an
extraordinary correlation between the degree of openness toward former communist
countries and the success of their transitions to democracies and market
economies.xi
--XT – BAD FAITH
Conditions aren’t credible – Cuba thinks the US will move the goalposts
Piccone 2011-Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Foreign Policy The Brookings Institution
(Ted, “To Effect Change in Havana, Support the Cuban People”, South Florida Sun Sentinel, 1/31/11,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/01/31-cuba-piccone, brookings institute)//KW
President Obama has stepped gingerly into this dilemma, despite initial promises of "a new day"
in U.S.-Cuban relations. His April 2009 decision to expand travel and remittances for CubanAmericans, restart migration talks and loosen telecommunications regulations was
the bare minimum down payment on this vision of change. But shortly thereafter,
Washington fell back into a tit-for-tat mode , allowing Havana to dictate the terms
of normalization. Even when positive steps were taken by the Castro regime
— the release of more than 50 political prisoners since July 2010, and major economic reforms
that should reduce the dependence of the Cuban people on the state — the White House moved
the goalposts , demanding more fundamental change as well as the release of a U.S.
government paid contractor arrested for providing technical support to the small Jewish community on
the island.
Conditions deter business investment
Gorrell, 5 - Lieutenant Colonel, US Army, paper submitted for the USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT
(Tim, “CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC CRISIS?” http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074
Fragmenting the policy process may do more harm than good. It does too little
too late and causes hard feelings among Cubans and American businesses. The carrot-stick
diplomatic approach will not make Castro yield. Such policy breeds inconsistency as it
can vary from administration to administration, as it has between the Clinton and
Bush administrations. The rules constantly change and thus have a ripple effect on
American businesses and the quality of life of Americans, Cuban-Americans and native
Cubans.
Cuban trade has already declined to a trickle since the Bush administration sought to further squeeze
the Castro government. Prior to the Bush administration’s trade crack down, 2004 was emerging as a
record year for U.S. imports to Cuba. By the end of December 2004 U.S. suppliers and shippers were
projected to have earned some $450 million, a 20% increase over 2003 sales.35 Imposing
restrictions, as the Bush administration did in June 2004, perplexed American
businesses with unpredicted problems. These businesses make
adjustments, as do Cuban- American citizens, then must abruptly alter their
business strategies because of a Congressional vote or an Executive order.
This political tug-of-war does not move the U.S. any closer to realizing its security objectives.
--XT – NATIONALIST REJECTION
If they say yes, they’ll lose face – the olive branch of the plan is a prerequisite to subsequent
conditions
Holmes, 10– B.A. from Georgetown, Master’s Thesis (Michael G., June 21, 2010, “Seizing the Moment”,
https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553334/holmesMichael.pdf?seque
nce=1, pg. 53-54)//NG
However Raul doesn’t actually have to lobby for the removal of the embargo, he simply has to not
provoke ire of the United States providing a reason for it to not remove the embargo. Raul Castro is
aware that Cuba cannot continue down the road it is currently on. The United
States removing the embargo unilaterally gives Raul the freedom to reap
the benefits of its removal without offering any type of reciprocal action,
allowing him and the regime to save face. The tense history between the United States
and Cuba makes it necessary to provide a neutral means to initiate any change in policy. By
allowing Cuba to save face the United States extends an olive branch to
Cuba. This may make Cuba more receptive to future changes.
Prefer our evidence- empirics
Pascual et. Al. 9– Vice president and Director of Foreign policy at Brookings (Carlos, Vicki
Huddleston, Gustavo Arnavat, Ann Bardach, Ramon Colas, Jorge Dominguez, Daniel Erikson, Mark
Falcoff, Damian Fernandez, Andy Gomez, Jesus Gracia, Paul Hare, Francisco Hernandez, William
LeoGrande, Marifeli Perez-Stable, Jorge Pinon, Archibald Ritter, Andres Rozental, Carlos Saladrigas,
“CUBA: A New policy of Critical and Constructive Engagement”, Brookings, April 2009,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/4/cuba/0413_cuba.pdf)//eek
The second basket of initiatives is distinct from the first because it moves beyond enhancing the ability
of Cubans to take a more proactive and informed part in their society and government. The
initiatives in the second basket seek to build a foundation for reconciliation by
beginning a process of resolving long-standing differences. A number of
these initiatives could serve as incentives or rewards for improved human
rights, the release of political prisoners, and greater freedom of assembly, speech and
rights for opposition groups and labor unions. Initiatives that fall within this category
include allowing Cuba access to normal commercial instruments for the
purchase of goods from the United States.
None of the initiatives, however, should be publicly or privately tied to specific
Cuban actions. As the Cuban government is on record as rejecting any type of
carrot-and-stick tactic, it would be counterproductive to do so. rather, the United
States should decide the actions that it wishes to take and when to carry them out. Doing so will give the
president maximum flexibility in determining how and when to engage.
--AT: RAUL IS DIFFERENT
Raul might be open to dialogue but he doesn’t care very much about relations
Hanson and Lee, 13-Hanson is associate director and coordinating editor at CFR.org, the website of the
Council on Foreign Relations. She manages the editorial production of the website and covers economic
and political development in Africa and Latin America. Lee is the Senior Production Editor of CFR.org
(Stephanie Hanson and Brianna Lee, “U.S.-Cuba Relations”, Council on Foreign Relations, 1/31/13,
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113)//TL
Raúl Castro has signaled he is willing to engage in dialogue with Washington.
At the same time, says CFR's Sweig, seeking normalized bilateral relations is
clearly not a priority for the Cuban government, which has moved to
diversify its relationships in the region. "Cuba no longer seems to need to see
the relationship with the United States improve as rapidly as it might well
have, for example, when the Soviet Bloc collapsed and it lost its Soviet subsidy overnight," Sweig told
CFR.org in a March 2009 interview. A 2009 Human Rights Watch report found that Cuba's judicial system
remained oppressive, saying, "Raúl Castro's government uses draconian laws and sham trials to
incarcerate scores more [political prisoners] who have dared to exercise their fundamental freedoms."
AT: CONDITION ON ALAN GROSS
The permutation solves better – the regime says no to the CP, yes to the perm
Herrero, 12 – Deputy Executive Director of the Cuba Study Group (Ricardo, “Getting Serious About Alan
Gross” 12/27, Huffington Post, http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/ouropinions?ContentRecord_id=5516bfa4-2442-4e28-8ae6-292522cbd3e9&ContentType_id=15d701740c41-47c6-9bd5-cc875718b6c3&Group_id=4c543850-0014-4d3c-8f87-0cbbda2e1dc7)
For years we've known that the Cuban government is incredibly adept at
manipulating U.S. policy choices. Time and again, any attempt by the U.S. to
increase its engagement with the Cuban people has been met with confrontation
and repression by Cuban officials, which in turn emboldens hardliners in
the U.S. to call for the tightening economic sanctions. This pattern has become all
too predictable, and the Gross case is its latest example: arrested in Havana for bringing communication
devices to the island less than three months after President Obama relaxed family travel and remittance
restrictions in 2009 and only two weeks after the U.S. House held hearings on lifting the Cuba travel ban
for all Americans. In response to Gross' arrest, U.S. hardliners blocked any further normalization efforts
in Congress, though they weren't able to stop the Obama Administration from further loosening
restrictions on people-to-people travel and remittances in January, 2011. Shortly thereafter, Gross was
sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once said "It is my personal belief that the Castros do not want
to see an end to the embargo and do not want to see normalization with the
United States, because they would lose all of their excuses for what hasn't happened in Cuba in the last
50 years." If we believe this to be the case, then why don't we use this insight to steer our efforts in
securing the release of Alan Gross?
The Cubans have often stated that they are willing to swap Gross for five Cuban spies who were arrested
in Florida in 1998 for infiltrating a U.S. Navy base and several anti-Castro groups in Miami. The U.S. has
refused to accept the swap, and the negotiations have remained stalled for almost three years.
So what can be done? There are three opportunities for securing Gross' release that could also
help improve relations between the U.S. and Cuba:
1. Introduce alternative terms to the negotiation. The Cubans have dictated the terms of the negotiation
from day one, and hardliners in the U.S. government have seemingly been too happy to play along.
However, just because the U.S. won't agree to the spy swap doesn't mean negotiations should stop
there. U.S. sanctions on Cuba remain a decades-old morass of congressional actions, presidential
directives and executive orders, resulting in an entrenched and inflexible foreign policy that is as
incoherent as it is ineffective. There are plenty of outdated sanctions on the books that the United
States could repeal or amend in exchange for Gross' release.
2. Pursue Gross' release and economic engagement concurrently. In 2011, the
Obama Administration announced a shift in the focus of U.S.-Cuba policy toward empowering civil
society and supporting independent economic activity. If Cuba's burgeoning private sector
is to grow into a viable alternative to the Island's top-down economic
system, it will need a deeper economic relationship with the American
private sector. By conditioning all further efforts to engage with the Cuban
people on Gross' release, we are playing by the rules of those who benefit
from the prolonged confrontation and mutual isolation between the two countries.
Denying these private individuals an economic relationship with the United
States only serves to further delay the kind of changes that policies like
Helms-Burton were ill-designed to accelerate.
2AC
AT: SQ SOLVES / GRADUALISM
Diaz-Canel won’t change relations
Wilkinson, 13 – chair of the International Institute for the Study of Cuba (Stephen, “ What Will a New
Generation of Leadership Mean for Cuba?” 3/6,
http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3254)
A: Stephen Wilkinson, chairman of the International Institute for the Study of Cuba: "This is a very
challenging question to answer for any Cuba watcher because I think it is fair to say that the
appointment of Miguel Díaz-Canel came as a surprise. He is not a person who was hitherto wellknown. He traveled abroad very rarely and has had very little contact with the United States or foreign
affairs. This means that it is almost impossible to predict what his appointment will mean. It is evident
that he is the first person to hold the post of first vice-president who was born after the revolution. He is
therefore a member of the generation that benefitted the most from the social advances that it made.
He comes from a relatively modest background, and he is not a member of any of the prominent
families that fought the revolution, nor is he a military figure. This might suggest that he has been
carefully selected because in him it is very difficult to accuse the Cuban leadership of being nepotistic or
dynastic, or of being militarized. His lack of prior contact with the United States is also important to
consider. As an unknown quantity, he will be harder to influence or predict. He has an impeccable
record as a party member, appears to be modest and is obviously extremely hard-working. I feel
therefore that he will represent continuity rather than change. I believe talk of a
significant generational switch is somewhat exaggerated. Even if he obtains
the highest office, Díaz-Canel will still be surrounded for years by members
of the generation that fought the revolution, many of whom are not as old as the Castros.
Esteban Lazo Hernández for example, who has just taken over the presidency of the National Assembly,
is 68 and fought in the revolution as boy. Even under the new two-term rule, he could still be in office in
2022! If anything, the lesson I would draw from this for the policymakers in Washington is
to wake up to the fact that waiting for the Castros to die is a waste of time."
Greater US influence is vital to influence the direction of Diaz-Canel
Jones, 13 - president of Alamar Associates in Bethesda, Md (Kirby, “ What Will a New Generation of
Leadership Mean for Cuba?” 3/6, http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3254)
A: Kirby Jones, president of Alamar Associates in Bethesda, Md.: "It is impossible to know
what Miguel Díaz-Canel would do as president of Cuba. Too little is known about
him and no crystal ball can possibly be that clear all the way to 2018. Too many unknown changes will
happen between now and then. One only needs to look at the last five years. Who would have predicted
in 2008 that there would be the economic and personnel changes that we now can see in 2013? Rather
the importance of this election of Díaz-Canel as first vice president is what it says about the current
government. Not only is Díaz-Canel the first post-revolution person to hold that post, but so too are the
majorities of the National Assembly and the Council of Ministers stocked with this new generation. A
new governing era has really taken hold. This is not to say that Raúl and the previous leaders will not still
set the tone and management of the reform process for the next several years. They will. But the
orderly transition to a country not led by a Castro is set. This can only mean
increased changes and new developments. And where is the United States? On
the sidelines, as usual. Other countries will make contact with this new
generation and will have the ability to conduct their affairs to their
advantage as they experience and understand the new political landscape.
The hardliners in Miami will move the goalposts once again seemingly in concert with U.S. policy, which
is so abysmally out of touch with reality."
Diaz-Canel won’t actually be in charge – it will be another Castro
Allen, 13 – graduated from the University of Leeds, UK, with First Class Honors (summa cum laude) in
Political Studies and undertook doctoral research at the University of Liverpool (Michael, “A post-Castro
Cuba? Not likely, say dissidents”, Democracy Digest, 2/26/13,
http://www.demdigest.net/blog/2013/02/a-post-castro-cuba-not-likely-say-dissidents/)//EX
But Cuban democrats question whether the handover will take place. “Raul Castro will be in power until
he dies,” said Orlando Gutierrez Boronat of the Cuban Democratic Directory: He views recent moves by
the Castro government as political gamesmanship and still speculates that Fidel Castro’s
daughter, Mariela Castro, could eventually assume power. Others think it
could be one of Raul Castro’s sons, Alejandro. “The Castro family has no
intention of letting go,” said Gutierrez Boronat. “They keep power within a very
close familiar group, together with the people who’ve been helping them in
the state apparatus for the last 53 years.” “They’re giving up power too late
and five years is too long to wait for them to actually do it,” said Francisco “Pepe”
Hernandez, president of the Cuban-American National Foundation, a group that has long lobbied in
Washington against the Castros.
Diaz-Canel will be replaced if he pushes too much reform
Suchlicki, 13 – is the Emilio Bacardi Moreau Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute for Cuban
and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami (Jaime, “Why Cuba Will Still Be Anti-American
After Castro”, The Atlantic, 3/5/13, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/whycuba-will-still-be-anti-american-after-castro/273680/)//EX
Dressed in an impeccable, custom-tailored suit and a Versace tie, instead of his usual military fatigues,
General Raul Castro addressed the Cuban Parliament on February 24. He did not discuss political or
economic reforms. Instead, he announced he would be stepping down from power at the end of the
five-year term for which he had just been elected. If the Pope retires, "I can also retire," he explained.
Yet the Cubans would have to wait for the "younger" brother to reach 87 years of age to see the end of
the Castro dynasty.
But not so fast. There are other Castros in the wings. In particular, Raul's son, Alejandro Castro Espin, a
colonel in Cuba's intelligence apparatus, could be groomed in the future by becoming a general and a
member of the Communist Party Politburo, Cuba's ruling body. In the meantime, Raul appointed a
younger Communist, Miguel Diaz Canel, as first vice president among five other vice presidents. A
hardline party apparatchik, Diaz Canel, a 52-year-old engineer and former
Minister of Education, grew up under Fidel's and Raul's shadow as an
obedient and disciplined Marxist. A protégé of Ramon Machado Ventura,
an old communist and (till Sunday) first vice president, Diaz Canel mirrors
the ideological rigidity of his mentor.
A second appointment followed. This one for President of the National Assembly (Cuba's Parliament).
Raul picked another old and loyal Communist, Esteban Lazo. Lazo has been the only prominent Cuban
black to occupy any high-ranking position in the predominantly white-controlled Cuban government. A
bland, obedient bureaucrat, Lazo will follow the Parliaments' tradition of rubber-stamping the laws
issued by the leadership.
The two appointments seemed more symbolic than significant. Raul Castro wanted to send a
double message: that the octogenarian Cuban leadership was now giving
way to a new, younger generation of leaders. Also, aware of the
unhappiness among Cuba's black population, impoverished and neglected
by the regime, Castro wanted to elevate a loyal supporter to the ceremonial
position in the Parliament. It is doubtful that the majority of Cubans (more
than 60 percent of whom are black and mulatto) will be appeased by these appointments
or renew their belief in the Cuban revolutionary leadership. Similarly, the
appointment of a young hardline bureaucrat is unlikely to gain much favor
with Cuba's youth, hoping for deeper political and economic changes.
Raul Castro seemed to have overlooked legal requirements in his own constitution, which calls for the
Party's Political Bureau to be the key group to recommend a post-Castro successor. If Raul dies or
becomes incapacitated, the Politburo will recommend and the Council of State will decide who will be
Cuba's new president. Since the Politburo is dominated by the military, it's obvious who will make the
final decision. Not only does the military control the Party's Politburo, but more than 60 percent of the
island's state enterprises, including the all-important tourist industry, are in the hands of the military.
Diaz Canel's tenure as first vice president may follow the fate of other younger leaders promoted earlier
by Fidel Castro. Former Czars of the economy Carlos Aldana and Carlos Lage and former foreign
ministers Roberto Robaina and Felipe Perez Roque were all promoted in the past to those key positions,
only to be removed by Castro when he doubted their loyalty or resented their prominence.
It is one of the ironies of totalitarian regimes that the road to bureaucratic success is not through
efficiency or hard work but through loyalty. Perhaps Diaz Canel has learned this lesson in his short
career. Without any popular support or base of power in the military, his
future may be as precarious as those of his comrades fired from their jobs
and now living in oblivion.
Reforms won’t thaw with Diaz-Canel
Allam 13 – writer for Miami Herald (Hannah, Miami Herald, “Even if Raul Castro steps down in 2018,
U.S.-Cuba relations may not thaw”, 2.25.13, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/25/3253690/evenif-raul-castro-steps-down.html)//EK
WASHINGTON -- Cuban President Raul Castro’s announcement over the weekend that
he’ll step down in 2018 after the five-year term he just began ends starts the
countdown for U.S. officials contemplating a thaw in relations with the
island nation. But analysts caution that so far the regime’s reforms amount
to window dressing. By law, the United States is restricted from normalizing
relations with Cuba as long as the island is ruled by the Castro brothers: ailing
revolutionary leader Fidel, 86, and his brother Raul, 81. Raul Castro said Sunday that not only would
he step aside in 2018, he also would propose term limits and age caps for future
presidents, the latest in a series of moves that are hailed by some Cuba
observers as steps toward reform but dismissed by others as disingenuous.
But those are hardly the kinds of breakthrough reforms that State
Department and independent analysts say will be needed to improve U.S.Cuba relations, which froze after the Cuban revolution of 1959 that saw Fidel Castro align himself
with the communist bloc and the United States impose a trade embargo that 54 years later remains in
place. “Each side is making small, subtle moves, but since it’s a glacier, it’s not
going to melt overnight,” said Alex Crowther, a former U.S. Army colonel and Cuba specialist
whose published commentaries on bilateral relations include a 2009 essay calling for an end to the
embargo.
Diaz-Canel might not be the heir, can fall out of favor- empirically proven
Bremmer 13 - American political scientist (Ian, Foreign Policy, “Will Miguel Diaz-Canel lead postCastro Cuba?”, Feb 27, 2013,
http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/27/will_miguel_diaz_canel_lead_post_castro_cuba)//E
K
Still, there is no guarantee that Diaz-Canel will be Cuba's next leader. Other
would-be heirs -- most notably Carlos Lage and Felipe Perez Roque -- have been
groomed for succession in the past only to fall from grace after
demonstrating an excess of personal ambition or clashing with Raul and
Fidel. Moreover, though Diaz-Canel has the legitimacy that comes with Raul's backing,
his last name is not Castro, and any transition will likely be challenging,
particularly given Cuba's deep economic troubles, tensions within the ruling
party, and intense pressure from the international community to
implement political reforms.
Diaz-Canel won’t reform to a revolution- strictly Marxist/Leninist
Nelson 13 – CBS4 News member, National Association of Television Arts and Sciences (Gary, Miami
CBS News, “Miguel Diaz-Canel: Cuba’s Next President?”, Feb 26, 2013,
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/02/26/miguel-diaz-canel-cubas-next-president/)//EK
“He may be the guy,” said University of Miami’s Professor Jaime Suchlicki on Tuesday,
adding that it wouldn’t seem likely, however. It is the Politburo, the same bunch that elected
Raul to a new term Sunday, that will name his successor. “They’ll get together and they’ll decide who is
the next President of Cuba. Most likely it will be somebody of the military, since the military controls the
Politburo,” Suchlicki said. Even if Diaz-Canel, an immaculately dressed fellow who sports perfectly
styled salt and pepper hair, should assume power; Suchlicki cautions that significant
reforms should not be expected in the Cuban system. “He is the godson of
one of the leaders of the revolution. He has been nurtured in that
atmosphere. He is a Marxist/Leninist,” Suchlicki said.
Even if Diaz-Canel wants reform, Castro behind the scenes makes reform impossible
Maestas, 13 – holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of California, Irvine and a
master’s degree in public policy from Claremont Graduate University (Adriana, “Raul Castro to retire in
2018, ending Castro era in Cuba”, Politic365, http://politic365.com/2013/02/25/raul-castro-to-retireafter-term/)//EX
On Sunday, Raul Castro announced that he would step down as President of Cuba in 2018 when his
second full term is up and when he is 86 years old. Raul Castro assumed the role of head of government
in 2006 when his brother Fidel Castro became ill. Since the 1959 revolution, the island nation has been
led by Fidel or Raul Castro.
Raul Castro is noted for making key economic and social changes in Cuba.
Some political prisoners have been released, some business has been
encouraged, and travel restrictions have been lifted making it easier for
Cuban citizens to travel abroad.
Castro’s second in line to the presidency is now Miguel Diaz-Canel, who at 52 years of age is a heartbeat
away from the presidency. Diaz-Canel, the first vice president, is too young to have participated in the
revolution that brought Fidel Castro into power.
Despite the announced changes, there is still skepticism in the U.S. about
the announcement and what it may mean in terms of foreign relations with
the island. The U.S. has imposed an embargo on Cuba for 53 years.
Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Cuban American who represents South Florida, issued a
statement last week about the rumored retirement of Raul Castro saying, “It’s not a matter of if,
but when, the Castro brothers ultimately vacate power – but the real change
in Cuba involves much more than the Castro brothers. If dictator Raul
Castro states that he will retire in five years, there will still be no real
change for the Cuban people so long as the Castro brothers remain in any
form of leadership position, even behind the scenes. The whole system
crafted by the Castro brothers is corrupt and must be totally replaced.
Shifting the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic won’t produce positive
changes. The U.S. should not change its policy of isolation of the Cuban
regime until, according to US law, there are free, fair and internationally
supervised elections, all the political prisoners are released and human
rights are finally respected.”
Diaz-Canel won’t reform – the communist regime will hold him back
Nelson, 13 – has had 42 years of experience being a report and has won multiple awards (Gary, “Miguel
Diaz-Canel: Cuba’s Next President?”, CBS Miami, 2/26/13,
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/02/26/miguel-diaz-canel-cubas-next-president/)//EX
Even if Diaz-Canel, an immaculately dressed fellow who sports perfectly styled salt and pepper hair,
should assume power; Suchlicki cautions that significant reforms should not be expected
in the Cuban system. “He is the godson of one of the leaders of the
revolution. He has been nurtured in that atmosphere. He is a
Marxist/Leninist,” Suchlicki said. Should Canel fail to toe the party line he could find himself
working as a “farmer in an interior section of Cuba,” Suchlicki said. “He will be constrained by
the same forces, by the military, by the communist party.” Suchlicki said the
same structure that has kept the Castro brothers in power for more than
half a century will fight to resist democratic or capitalistic reforms. At the same
time, the UM expert noted that Raul Castro has brought greater communication, freedom to travel and
some economic reforms to Cuba that may have room to grow. “That would certainly be our hope,”
Suchlicki said.
No change Diaz Canel is loyal to the communist party
Wilkinson, 13 - Mexico City bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times, ( Tracy, Cuba's apparent
successor to Castro was carefully groomed, Los Angeles Times, 2-26-2013,
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/26/world/la-fg-cuba-diaz-canel-20130227)//BDS
MEXICO CITY — To most outsiders, Miguel Diaz-Canel was an unknown. But in Cuba, the newly
anointed possible heir to the Castro brothers was a carefully groomed, hardworking and
familiar figure. Diaz-Canel emerged as the likely successor to lead a post-Castro government over
the weekend when he was named first vice president and President Raul Castro announced that he
would step down at the end of his just-ratified five-year term. It marks the first time an expiration date
has been put on the Castro era, during which the island was led first by Fidel and then by Raul after the
1959 revolution that ousted a dictatorial U.S.-backed regime. Diaz-Canel, 52, is part of a new generation
of Cuban political operatives. Raul is 81 and Fidel, who formally stepped down in 2008, is 86. The heir
apparent worked his way up through the ranks of communist Cuba, serving
in the military and filling posts in the provinces. He won praise from the
leadership for fidelity and a roll-up-the-sleeves work ethic that put him in the
trenches alongside regular people. "He is not a test-tube politician," said a Cuban
official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss political matters.
In other words, he was not a latecomer dilettante who felt entitled by virtue of class or family. "He
worked closely with the people and gained lots of experience." Essentially, he paid his dues, putting hard
work ahead of the overt ambition that has felled many an up-and-comer on the Cuban political
landscape. Tall, with thick silvery hair, Diaz-Canel is a striking if not particularly charismatic figure. In
nearly three decades of work on behalf of the state, he earned a degree in engineering, taught at the
university level, ran local governments and dipped his toe into international tourism. He was assigned
management of what Cuban officials consider major areas of accomplishment by the revolution:
education, sports and biotechnology. "His legitimacy comes from governing and
doing," said Julia E. Sweig, an expert on Cuba at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of the
book "Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know." "He is a problem-solver and very grass-roots. He comes
from real on-the-ground actions." More recently, as his profile rose and his appearances on Cuban
television increased, he filled in for Raul Castro at important events, including a symbolic inauguration of
the cancer-stricken President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Cuba's most important ally. He also attended
the swearing-in of Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto at a time when Cuba is hoping to restore its
formerly close relationship with the country. Raul Castro himself sang Diaz-Canel's praises Sunday after
the appointment. "He is not an out-of-nowhere [figure] nor an upstart," Castro said, and went on to
detail the younger man's 30-year career. Castro said Diaz-Canel's appointment represented a historic
point in a generational transformation. Of course, this is Cuba and many things could yet derail the
career of Diaz-Canel. If he does succeed Castro, the task before him is enormous. Castro has
embarked on a slow but steady program of reform, loosening the state's grip on the
economy and opening travel for citizens — steps, he says, that were necessary not to do away
with the country's socialist model but to modernize and improve it. Yet it is a
painful and uncertain period for a population mostly reared by a paternalistic state. Castro apparently
trusts Diaz-Canel as a figure of continuity. That may reassure members of the government, but it riles
the exile community that is hoping for more definitive change. "Shifting the deck chairs on
the sinking Titanic won't produce positive changes," Havana-born U.S. Rep. Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said in a statement. It is probably Diaz-Canel's military
experience, along with his years of Communist Party duty, that make him
most trustworthy to Castro. He served in an antiaircraft rocket battery in his youth and is
believed to maintain good contacts with the armed forces. "He clearly supports the economic opening
and is trusted by the party and the military, and these are the principal pillars of government at this
time," said Robert A. Pastor, director of the Center for North American Studies at American University in
Washington and a former Carter administration official involved in Cuba. "The naming of DiazCanel is a further sign that the transition — from caudillo rule to cautious
institutionalization of the revolution, from a closed state-controlled economy to one that is opening
gradually — is well underway, and the Communist Party is firmly in control."
Change in the regime is unlikely even with Diaz-Canel
Ventrell,13 - Acting Deputy Spokesperson, U.S. Department of State (Patrick, Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC February 25, 2013 Transcript, US Department of State, 2-25-2013,
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2013/02/205179.htm)//BDS
QUESTION: Can I ask about Cuba? MR. VENTRELL: Go ahead. QUESTION: Do you have a reaction to Raul
Castro saying he will not seek reelection in five years’ time? MR. VENTRELL: So, Brad, we are indeed
aware of the reports that President Castro, Raul Castro, announced his intention to
step down in 2018 after another five-year term. We also saw the announcement that Mr. Miguel
Diaz-Canel was named First Vice President. We remain hopeful for the day that
the Cuban people get democracy, when they can have the opportunity to freely pick their
own leaders in an open democratic process and enjoy the freedoms of speech and association without
fear of reprisal. We’re clearly not there yet. QUESTION: Hold on, hold on. I’m glad you’re
aware. I guess that confirms that not everybody in the U.S. Government slept through the entire
weekend. But do you have an actual reaction? Do you have a position on whether this is a good step,
whether this is helpful in that process toward a freer, fairer, Cuba as you stated? MR. VENTRELL: I think - QUESTION: Or just that you know that things happened in the world over the last 48 hours? MR.
VENTRELL: Well, no. I mean, I think, Brad, what we’re saying is that we’ve noted that it’s happened, but
clearly, a change in leadership that, absent the fundamental democratic
reforms necessary to give people their free will and their ability to pick
their own leaders, won’t be a fundamental change for Cuba. QUESTION: So this
is not enough; they still need to do more if they want to, one, improve the state of
their country and, two, repair relations with the United States? MR. VENTRELL:
Absolutely.
Diaz-Canel Unlikely to secede Raul
Democracy Digest, 13 – (A post-Castro Cuba? Not likely, say dissidents, Democracy Digest, 2-26-13,
http://www.demdigest.net/blog/2013/02/a-post-castro-cuba-not-likely-say-dissidents/)//BDS
The regime has adopted a series of anemic reforms in an attempt to kick-start a sclerotic economy
which is now more dependent on Venezuelan aid that it was on Soviet subsidies before 1991.
“Regardless of what happens in Venezuela, the Cuban regime needs to ‘update’ the revolution,” said
Sabatini, a former Latin America program officer at the National Endowment for Democracy. “Even with
the 100,000 or so barrels of oil the regime receives every year it is still struggling fiscally, is still strapped
for hard currency and is still failing to meet people’s basic needs.” But Cuban democrats
question whether the handover will take place. “Raul Castro will be in
power until he dies,” said Orlando Gutierrez Boronat of the Cuban Democratic
Directory: He views recent moves by the Castro government as political gamesmanship and still
speculates that Fidel Castro’s daughter, Mariela Castro, could eventually assume
power. Others think it could be one of Raul Castro’s sons, Alejandro. “The
Castro family has no intention of letting go,” said Gutierrez Boronat. “They keep
power within a very close familiar group, together with the people who’ve
been helping them in the state apparatus for the last 53 years.” “They’re giving up
power too late and five years is too long to wait for them to actually do it,” said Francisco “Pepe”
Hernandez, president of the Cuban-American National Foundation, a group
that has long lobbied in Washington against the Castros. “‘They’ve already done so much harm to the
Cuban people. And the nerve to think they can name a successor, as if Cuba was
their personal farm. The successor they named better be careful; those guys
sometimes just disappear,” he said. On his blog, Mauricio Claver-Carone, the Executive
Director of Cuba Democracy Advocates, wrote: “Here’s a novel idea — how about letting the Cuban
people choose their ‘new generation’ of leaders?” The Obama administration takes a similar line,
suggesting that Cubans deserve the right to choose their own leaders in free and fair elections. “Absent
the fundamental democratic reforms necessary to give people their free will and their ability to pick
their own leaders, it won’t be a fundamental change for Cuba,” said State Department deputy acting
spokesman Patrick Ventrell. The activists’ skepticism is echoed by independent analysts. “I don’t
think Diaz-Canel has any base of power,” said Professor Jaime Suchlicki, a
Cuba expert at the University of Miami. “He’s not military. He doesn’t have any tanks
or a regimen. Right now, he’s the man of the hour. Two years from now, he
may not be.” Since inheriting power from his brother Fidel, Castro has initiated a series of tentative
micro-reforms, designed to promote a China model of limited private enterprise while maintaining the
ruling Communist party’s political monopoly.
Changes in Cuban leadership don’t affect policy
French, 13 – editor to The Havana Note on US Cuban relations, contributor to The Washington Post,
The Baltimore Sun, TheAtlantic.com, ForeignPolicy.com, CNN.com, the South Florida Sentinel and The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Havana Note (Anya Landau, U.S. Restarts Migration, Mail Talks with
Cuba, The Havana Note, 6-24-13, http://thehavananote.com/contributors/3/all)//BDS
It’s not that I harbor any great love for Fidel Castro. It's not about Castro at all, and that's the point. It
can be mighty frustrating to have to explain over and over again that waiting isn't a policy, and
even if it were, the conflict simply isn't about Fidel Castro anymore. As Republican
Senator Mike Enzi likes to say about U.S. Cuba policy, if you keep doing what you've
always done, you'll keep getting what you've already got. And yet, waiting is
the predominant American viewpoint when it comes to Cuba; nothing can
or should change until Fidel goes. But the reality is that the so-called biological
solution is no solution at all. Fidel Castro has been out of power (if not
influence) for 7 years now. In order to try to right his sinking ship, Raul Castro has steadily been
dismantling many of the economic – and even some political – policies that his older brother either
endorsed or neglected. Does anyone truly believe that anything will change either in
Cuba or in the bilateral relationship as a result of his exit from the scene? Surely not;
whatever change his exit might have ushered in, that moment came and
went in 2006 when he gave up the reins of power for the first time since gaining them a half a
century ago. Both the U.S. and Cuban governments have botched this thing over
and over, and, arguably, haven’t always wanted reconciliation or
normalization or any other nuanced form of moving on. Over the last several years, the Obama
administration’s policy toward Cuba has been something of a work in progress. Openings to travel and
exchange have been slow, at times arbitrarily approved, but in the end, have proliferated. The
president’s call for a new beginning in the relationship was followed largely by more of the same when it
came to USAID programming, which is not your usual development programming in partnership with
the host country. And when the U.S. had the opportunity to send a message, a gesture, by sending one
of the Cuban Five who was released on parole back to Cuba instead, we didn’t. (Did we really want him
on U.S. soil, anyway?)
FAST REFORMS NOW
Non-unique – Reforms have been fast in Cuba since ’08 – privatization of the economy,
property rights, and businesses
Barcia, 12 – Senior Lecturer in Latin American Studies at the School of Modern Languages and Cultures,
as well as Deputy Director at the Institute for Colonial and Postcolonial Studies at the University of Leeds
(Michael, “Cuba's slow path to the future”, Aljazeera, 1/11/12,
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/20121883342630706.html)//EX
Leeds, United Kingdom - When the Cuban parliament met in Havana's Palacio de las Convenciones just
before last Christmas, the main issue in the agenda was the plan of reforms launched in 2009 with the
aim of renovating the economy of the island. The reforms, if limited, still constitute a way of opening up
to the private initiative while finding a way around the US embargo that continues to linger over the
island's destiny. Fifty-two years after John F Kennedy's administration put the embargo in place, Cuba is
still dealing with a world in which US institutions are, for the most part, unreachable. The IMF and the
World Bank, for example, are no-go places. Having to depend on short-term loans with
high interest rates has transformed the island into an international credit
pariah, intensifying the deterioration of Cuba's economy. In recent years, as Cuba
has gradually emerged from the Special Period - the economic tribulations that followed the
disappearance of the Socialist markets and Soviet subsidies on which Cuba depended - new measures
have been taken to steer the ship in the right direction. After Fidel Castro resigned in 2008 and his
brother Raul became head of state, the process of economic reform stepped up a
gear. With a well-educated, active labour force of almost five million
people, most of whom were until recently on the government's books, Raul
Castro began to privatise parts of the economy to foster growth. Suddenly
Cubans had new possibilities that, although restricted, gave them some respite. First, the new
administration allowed all citizens who could afford them to have mobile
phones and to buy and sell small private property (houses, vehicles, etc). Then
came the proliferation of small businesses, the distribution of unused land
among farmers and more recently start-up credits were approved in order
to stimulate the creation of even more new businesses.
AT: EXPORT MARKET TRADEOFF DISADS
Cuba trades using medical diplomacy – it means the plan won’t offset existing trade partners
because the US doesn’t have the same medical demand
Margulies, 8 – JD, New York University (Michael, “STRONGER TRADE OR STRONGER EMBARGO: WHAT
THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR UNITED STATES-CUBA RELATIONS” 8 Asper Rev. Int'l Bus. & Trade L. 147, lexis)
Finally, Cuba's long-term development of human capital, through its
investment in education and health care services, places the country in a
position to give priority to partners willing to enter into trade agreements
exchanging goods for services. Venezuela has eagerly taken advantage of
such exchange, exporting oil and other commodities to Cuba in return for medical personnel. n169
As a result, Venezuela occupies nearly a quarter of Cuba's foreign trade
market; this stronghold on the Cuban market will not likely be displaced by
other trade competitors or the United States, even if the embargo is lifted . The fact that
the United States does not have as pressing a need for Cuban health care
services or education, one of Cuba's major new export prospects, n170 as other potential Cuban
trade partners may restrict the ability for the U.S. share of Cuban foreign trade to dramatically increase.
Plan won’t capture the Cuban market – Cuba will stay with its existing partners
Margulies, 8 – JD, New York University (Michael, “STRONGER TRADE OR STRONGER EMBARGO: WHAT
THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR UNITED STATES-CUBA RELATIONS” 8 Asper Rev. Int'l Bus. & Trade L. 147, lexis)
While Cuba has been outspoken about the mutual benefits of enhanced
trade relations with the United States, n163 it might not be willing to sacrifice
the relationships developed with trade partners that have stepped up since the
dissolution of the Soviet presence in Cuba. In particular, trade relations with Venezuela,
Bolivia and China, because of their similar political ideals, n164 will likely flourish in years
to come, making it increasingly difficult for the United States to occupy any
share of the market those countries currently possess. Additionally, countries that are willing to
enter into trade agreements with Cuba on the basis of credit, as well as those prepared to defer preexisting loan payments, will [*176] have a greater opportunity to play an increased role in Cuban
foreign trade. n165 Though Cuba does not have any outstanding loans with the United States, the
"payment of cash in advance" requirement of TSRA n166 and the subsequent OFAC
clarifications of this terminology n167 render the United States a less attractive trade
partner than countries offering transactions on the basis of credit. Even if
the U.S. Congress can pass legislation easing these restrictions, Cuba's poor
credit rating n168 might discourage U.S. corporations and banking
institutions from entering into such agreements.
Cuba says no to greater US trade – it’s counter-revolutionary
Margulies, 8 – JD, New York University (Michael, “STRONGER TRADE OR STRONGER EMBARGO: WHAT
THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR UNITED STATES-CUBA RELATIONS” 8 Asper Rev. Int'l Bus. & Trade L. 147, lexis)
Should all the requisite factors fall into place on the U.S. side in order to ease or lift the existing trade
restrictions against the export of agricultural commodities - or even allow other forms of trade - there
is no guarantee that Cuba will seize the opportunity to enter into such an
enhanced relationship with the United States. As evidenced by its initial
rejection of the U.S. offer to export agricultural goods in 2001, immediately
following the adoption of TSRA, n155 Cuba may be less willing [*174] to accept such an
offer than an economic analysis would indicate. For Cuba, U.S. commodities - whether
agricultural or of another nature - may be significantly cheaper than those offered by other trade
partners, as a result of the proximity between the two countries and the related transportation costs.
n156 The Cuban government, however, whether under the leadership of Fidel or Raul, has
very strong ideals and convictions when it comes to relations with the United
States. These may impede the expansion of any such trade.
It is well known that one of the central tenets of the Cuban Revolution and the Castro
regime is a strong policy against "neo-liberal globalization," the United States
and capitalist imperialism. n157 These convictions may lead Cuba to balk at
the opportunity to take advantage of some forms of trade with the United States.
Such selectivity has been present even under TSRA-authorized trade with Alimport. Cuba has claimed
that the reduction in purchases by Alimport in 2005 came not as a result of tightened restrictions by the
Bush administration and subsequent difficulties working out contracts with U.S. agricultural entities, but
rather as a result of "efforts by the government of the Republic of Cuba to increase the motivation of
United States-based companies, organization; state and local governmental representatives; and
Members of the United States Congress to be more visible in their lobbying efforts for changes in United
States policy, law and regulations." n158
AT: NON-STATE PIC
The non-state sector is too small – they solve none of the aff and exclude coops
Ashby, 13 - Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Timothy, “Commentary:
Preserving stability in Cuba after normalizing relations with the US” 4/1,
http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/headline-Commentary%3A-Preserving-stability-in-Cuba-afternormalizing-relations-with-the-US-15197.html)
Some policy analysts suggest that bilateral trade with Cuba should be
restricted to businesses and individuals engaged in certifiably independent (i.e. nonstate) economic activity. [17] While well-intentioned, such a policy would likely
have a negligible impact on Cuba’s economic development and fails to recognize that
commercial enterprises that the US government would classify as SOEs are
actually co-ops or other types of quasi-independent entities that are in the
early stages of privatization. Restrictions such as this also fail to address larger national and
regional security concerns which are the primary responsibility of the president.
Although ultimately the Cuban people must freely choose their own political and economic systems,
President Obama should be seen as having legal authority to support the
transition taking place on the island by opening US markets to Cuban
imports. Normalized bilateral trade will benefit the Cuban people and help
to provide economic and social stability that is in turn vital to US national and regional
security.
Such trade must include both the island’s small, yet growing, private sector
and State-Owned Enterprises. In this regard, it would be both unfair and strategically unwise
to treat Cuba differently from its stated models, China and Vietnam.
Including coops are key to the ag advantage
Ashby 13, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. He served in the U.S.
Commerce Department's International Trade Administration as Director of the Office of Mexico and the
Caribbean and acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for the Western Hemisphere(Timothy,
"Preserving Stability in Cuba After Normalizing Relations with the United States – The Importance of
Trading with State-Owned Enterprises" 3/29/13, Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
http://www.coha.org/preserving-stability-in-cuba-timothy-ashby/)//AD
Cuban SOEs are in a state of gradual transition like other parts of the economy. In
December 2012, the Cuban government authorized a wide range of co-ops that
will allow workers to collectively open new businesses or take over existing
SOEs in construction, transportation, and other industries. Considered a pilot
program that is a prime candidate for an expansion, the co-ops “will not be administratively
subordinated to any state entity.” [6]
Many Cuban officials, well aware of the limits to small-scale entrepreneurism, appear to harbor hope
that co-ops could shift a large portion of the island’s economy to free-market competition from
government-managed socialism. In other transitional states, particularly in post-socialist economies, coops have served as commercial bridges between state-owned and privatized business. Of the 300 largest
co-ops in the world, more than half are in United States, Italy, or France. [7]
Ironically, the outputs of such co-ops, including agricultural products which could find
strong demand in the American market, are barred by short-sighted federal
regulations, thus hampering, if not defeating, what could be a major US policy goal.
Cuba responds to half-measures like the CP by with confrontational tactics – it means the CP
will never spill up to larger engagement
Cuba Study Group 13 – non partisan non for profit made up of business and professional
individuals with experience in Cuban US affairs (Cuba Study Group, Restoring Executive Authority Over
U.S. Policy Toward Cuba, Cuba Study Group, February 2013,
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7f2193cf-d2ef-45c8-91de0b1f88d30059)//BDS
The Cuban government has become increasingly adept at manipulating U.S.
policy choices. This is why any sign of a thaw from the United States has
repeatedly been followed by confrontation or repression, which in turn has been
followed by U.S. domestic pressure to tighten economic sanctions. This
pattern has become somewhat predictable, as recently exemplified by Cuba’s
imprisonment of U.S. contractor Alan Gross after President Obama relaxed family
travel and remittance restrictions in 2009 and U.S. policymakers’ refusal to pursue
improved bilateral relations in response.xvi It can be reasonably concluded that elements of the
Cuban government do not, in fact, seek any substantial liberalization from U.S.
sanctions. Indeed, Helms-Burton provides them with an alibi for their own
failures and may well be essential to their political survival. Senator Jesse Helms
famously said that Helms-Burton “tightened the noose around the neck of the last dictator in the
Western Hemisphere, Fidel Castro.”xvii In practice, however, Helms-Burton may have served as an
incredibly convenient life raft, giving a struggling and failing system the legitimacy that comes from the
appearance of being a “state under siege.”
NON-STATE PIC LINKS TO POLITICS
Menedez could derail the CP and create political deadlock
Broder, 13 – CQ staff member (Jonathan, A New Obstacle to Any Shift Toward Cuba, CQ, 1-5-2013,
http://public.cq.com/docs/weeklyreport/weeklyreport-000004201640.html)//BDS
And the sanctions have become so ossified that even items such as American
medical exports — which are allowed under a humanitarian exemption — also are
effectively blocked. That’s because of a statute that requires U.S. companies to perform on-site
inspections in Cuba to ensure their products aren’t being used for weapons. Faced with such legal
complications, most U.S. medical companies don’t even bother doing business with Cuba.
Overseeing the administration’s strict adherence to these laws will be
Menendez, in line to take over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee if its current chairman,
Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, is confirmed as Obama’s new secretary of State. Menendez
has demonstrated before that he isn’t shy about opposing presidents of his
own party on Cuba and Iran, his top foreign policy priorities. He placed holds on several
nominations and an appropriations measure in 2009, when Obama first
relaxed restrictions on Cuban-American travel and remittances to the island. Menendez
relented only after the administration agreed to toughen the language of its executive order. He remains
deeply distrustful of Cuba’s moves toward a free-market economy and points to both the government’s
bureaucratic restrictions on entrepreneurs, its harsh treatment of dissidents, and the continued
imprisonment of Gross to douse any expectations of change in Cuba. “It is hard to believe that the
regime is seeking meaningful reforms on the island,” Menendez says. “It would seem more likely that it
is looking for new ways to fill its coffers and line the pockets of corrupt officials.” And he adds, “This is
not the first time that the regime has announced reforms and then undermined such efforts with red
tape and intrusive fees that make the legal operation of such business near impossible.” As
chairman of Foreign Relations, Mendendez could, for example, condition the
panel’s consideration of nominees and treaties on getting his way over
Cuba. And he likely would have the support of Florida Republican Marco Rubio, the
other hard-line Cuban-American member of the committee.
AT: INTERMEDIARY CP
The CP creates policy incoherence and Cuba won’t respond
Huddleston and Pascual, 10 – Brookings Institution (Vicki and Carlos, Learning to Salsa : New Steps in
U.S.-Cuba Relations, p. 158)
Participants also debated whom the United States should work with in the region. Some in the roles of
foreign ministers from countries friendly to the United States argued that selective
multilateralism, such as seen in the current simulation, would not be a solution.
Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, China, and Russia are the countries that must
be brought on board with the new synthesis. Still, even if that effort succeeded, the United
States was unlikely to work closely with governments that it did not consider committed to a democratic
Cuba. Coordinating with those with fundamentally different perspectives would
also carry the risk of undermining policy coherence.
Even among countries that consider themselves friends of the United States, differing historical
perspectives led to tensions in suggested policies and tactics. This raised
questions concerning U.S. options if coordinated engagement does not lead
to the intended effects, and the Cuban government is unwilling to respond
to good-faith negotiations. Should the United States continue to align its policies with a
common multilateral policy? Fifty years of acting alone provides empirical evidence that reverting to a
unilateral policy of isolating Cuba will not achieve U.S. objectives. For the United States, the dialogue
underscored the need to moderate its policies, even if this process proves difficult and is accompanied
by new tensions. But the international community should also accept that
unleveraged engagement is a weak strategy. To this end, U.S. partners should grant the
United States some leeway to manage the sensitive politics of shifting strategies after fifty years, while
at the same time reinforcing the importance of pressing Cuba to improve its human rights and rule-oflaw profile.
Direct US engagement is vital to maximizing US influence with Cuba and coordinating oil spill
response
The Boston Globe, 13 – Editorial (“Cuba’s reforms pave way for new US policy, too”, The Boston Globe,
2/9/13, http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/09/cuba-reform-create-opportunitydrag-policy-into-century/xER2NTTXGsxdLej0miHwFM/story.html)//EX
Direct relations would also further US national security and environmental
interests; as Cuba opens up, other countries will sweep in to seek influence , as China
has already done. Especially as Cuba increasingly promotes offshore drilling and other maritime
exploration, the United States must improve communication with Havana.
Currently, even though the United States and Cuba are separated by a narrow
channel, the two countries have no bilateral communications to ensure
safety standards for their mutual protection from oil spills.
AT: CUBA INTO OAS CP
Cuba hates the OAS and won’t join
Huddleston and Pascual, 10 – Brookings Institution (Vicki and Carlos, Learning to Salsa : New Steps in
U.S.-Cuba Relations, p. 159)
As of 2009, every OAS member state except for the United States maintains diplomatic relations with
Cuba, and among these states a consensus has emerged to allow Cuba to take up its seat in the OAS.
The question that remains is whether OAS membership could be offered in a way that creates incentives
for reform in Cuba. Given Cuba’s historic disdain for the OAS, however, it is not
at all certain that Cuba desires to be reinstated if it is required to meet
standards for membership.
Participants were concerned that the OAS’s commitment to democracy as embodied
in the Inter-American Democratic Charter might be eroded if Cuba were
reinstated without preconditions. One suggestion was that a group of
countries might review Cuba’s progress toward the objectives of the charter
and make recommendations that, if met, would lead to Cuba’s full reinstatement. But many
doubted Cuba would have any interest at all in such an invasive process. The
participant in the role of the OAS secretary general believed that most members would seek a measured
and orchestrated process for Cuba’s reinstatement, in which all members would be invited to have their
say. In his view, such an effort would strengthen the OAS’s representative decisionmaking mechanism
and reinforce the message that Cuba has a stake in its reintegration to the Inter-American system. There
was some support for providing an incentive to Cuba by linking economic and political reforms in Cuba
to a process that would eliminate commercial and financial sanctions.
AT: INCREASE PRESSURE CP
Increasing pressure backfires, and collapses US soft power
Koenig, 10 – US Army Colonel, paper submitted for a Masters in Strategic Studies at the US Army War
College (Lance, “Time for a New Cuba Policy” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA518130)
Strengthen the current policy. Eliminate the billions of dollars per year in remittances from
Cuban-Americans to relatives within Cuba. Work multilaterally with other countries to increase the
effectiveness of the current embargoes on trade and travel. Fully implement the “Powell Commission
Report” recommendations to end the Castro dictatorship and undermine the succession strategy.31 The
Powell Commission Report seeks to reverse the recent economic gains to put added pressure on the
government of Cuba. 32 Additionally, pressure the European Union to stop trading with Cuba and
restrict the ability of EU citizens to travel to Cuba. The EU nations provide a great opportunity to make
up for lost trade with the United States and have a large population of potential tourists for Cuban
beaches. The United States must deter actions by the Organization of American States to work closer
with Cuba. The Organization of American States should also warn its members to limit the scope of
bilateral relations with Cuba in order to support the efforts of the United States. The United States must
use Radio and TV Marti to inform the Cuban people of the true cause of their economic difficulty, the
dysfunctional communist centrally controlled economy vice economic sanctions. And finally, tighten the
noose around the economy and government of Cuba to attempt to bring down the government in a
shorter period of time. This option assumes that our current policy is the correct policy, but needs to be
strengthened. It eliminates half measures and contradicting policies to produce a more powerful
embargo with devastating effect on the Cuban dictatorship. The risk is that the United States
will become further isolated from the world in regards to its Cuba policy
and will create additional sympathy for Cuba. This could result in open
disregard for the embargo by the European Union and other countries
interested in trade with Cuba, with a collapse of the effectiveness of the
embargo. The soft power of the United States would suffer with possibly no gain. The
United States could lose all possible influence over the future direction of the
Cuban government as the Castro regime is replaced.
Cuban oil development makes enforcing sanctions impossible
Iglesias, 12 – Commander, US Navy. Paper submitted for the Master of Strategic Studies Degree at the
the US Army War College (Carlos, “United States Security Policy Implications of a Post-Fidel Cuba”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA560408) GOC = Government of Cuba, FAR = Cuban
military
The paramount drivers of these short-lived opportunities are economic in nature. With those, the
current period before Cuba taps its substantial oil and gas reserves may be
defining the last real chance for the sanctions to have their desired effect.
Once the hydrocarbons and the resulting hard currencies are flowing, the
island will be freed from 32 many of the economic concession it has had to
make to survive. A vibrant petroeconomy will directly undercut any hope
for future sanction efficacy.
AT: VERMICULTURE DISAD
The tech is simple --- Cuba’s expertise is not needed
Rajendran et al. 08 – Professor of Zoology @Vivekananda College (P., E. Jayakumar, Sripathi
Kandula & P. Gunasekaran, “Vermiculture and Vermicomposting Biotechnology for Organic Farming and
Rural Economic Development,” Eco Web, February 2008, pg. http://www.ecoweb.com/edi/080211.html) //SP
Vermitechnology is popular because it is a simple methodology with low investment and does not need
sophisticated infrastructure. To process one ton of organic matter daily, it would require about 1500 sq
meters of space with 6 workers. It would produce about 70 tons of earthworm casting annually (Gupta,
2003). Innovative, interested and talented rural people can be successful entrepreneurs in
vermicompost production and accruing profits will enhance their life style and income. They will be able
to spend time usefully by getting job opportunities with the help of self-employment schemes.
India can solve
Rajendran et al. 08 – Professor of Zoology @Vivekananda College
(P. Rajendran, E. Jayakumar, Sripathi Kandula & P. Gunasekaran “Vermiculture and Vermicomposting
Biotechnology for Organic Farming and Rural Economic Development,” Eco Web, February 2008, pg.
http://www.eco-web.com/edi/080211.html)//HA
Vermiculture and vermicomposting technology is easy to practice,
ecologically safe, economically sound and can create more employment
opportunities for the rural people to upgrade their standard of living. At present
Vermiculture technology is all set to emerge as a big business of the next
century. The organic manure obtained from different waste materials using this
versatile technique will avoid pollution problems to a greater extent. India being
agriculture based country, it could easily produce millions of tones of Vermicompost , and
considerably reduce the use of chemical fertilizers.
Vermittechnology is popular, simple, and accessible to rural populations
Rajendran et al. 08 – Professor of Zoology @Vivekananda College
(P. Rajendran, E. Jayakumar, Sripathi Kandula & P. Gunasekaran “Vermiculture and Vermicomposting
Biotechnology for Organic Farming and Rural Economic Development,” Eco Web, February 2008, pg.
http://www.eco-web.com/edi/080211.html)//HA
Vermitechnology is popular because it is a simple methodology with low
investment and does not need sophisticated infrastructure. To process one ton of
organic matter daily, it would require about 1500 sq meters of space with 6
workers. It would produce about 70 tons of earthworm casting annually (Gupta,
2003). Innovative, interested and talented rural people can be successful
entrepreneurs in vermicompost production and accruing profits will enhance their
life style and income. They will be able to spend time usefully by getting job opportunities with
the help of self-employment schemes.
AT: DEDEV
Cuba proves crisis won’t cause a mindset shift – it causes short-term adaption and then a
return to growth
Borowya, 11 - University of Rostock, Historical Institute, August-Bebel-Str.28, 18051 Rostock, Germany
(Iris, “Degrowth and public health in Cuba: lessons from the past?”
http://degrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Borowy-2013.pdf
5. Relevance to degrowth
Can the Special Period in Cuba serve as a model for a degrowth scenario that
presupposes economic crisis as an entry? The Cuban reaction to a drastic decline in material resources
and finances, a reliance on local economies, promotion of labor-intensive activities and reduction of any
type of consumption, resonates with visions of a socially and environmentally sustainable economy.
Indeed, key policies look eerily like the “macro-economic interventions needed to achieve ecological and
economic stability in the new economy” postulated by degrowth scholar Tim Jackson:
- Structural transition to service-based activities;
- Investment in ecological assets; and
- Working-time policy as a stabilizing mechanism (Jackson, 2009).
Notably the impressive development of organic urban agriculture seemed like a promising strategy to
solve several of Cuba’s pressing problems of the time which may be the pressing problems of the future:
feeding people with fewer (fossil) resources, providing labor-intensive employment, enhancing the
environment for growing urban populations and stimulating social inclusion through community
building. In addition, the most positive lesson of this episode may be that despite the disastrous
conditions in which it had to develop it brought about life-style changes with tangible health benefits.
However, there are several points to keep in mind:
1. Despite its beneficial effects the Special Period also had distinct negative aspects such as massive
emigration reflecting substantial despair, tangible government repression and rising social inequality,
which are clearly problematic for degrowth perspectives.
2. 1990s Cuba presents in many ways a unique case, not easily imitated elsewhere. Cuba could build on
a firm tradition of high priority for health care. Cuba also had a highly educated population and a
network of state organizations in which further training could be communicated efficiently to its
citizens. Transition policies were facilitated by the relatively small size and homogeneity of the
population (ca. 11 million people without pronounced geographical or ethnic differentiation). A rich
infrastructure of social capital supported government policies of group support but also group control in
ways that had been familiar to citizens for decades. These initiatives helped turn the crisis into a group
experience instead of merely individual hardship.
3. The immediate crisis was brought on by external forces. Thus responsibility could be projected on
outside forces so that authorities could focus on how to cope with these difficulties while largely
escaping blame for causing painful socio-economic changes. Besides, the circumstances of the crisis
depended on a unique combination of outside factors which made it clear to everybody that drastic
changes were inevitable. Thus, it should be noted once more that key measures, such as the
adoption of urban agriculture, were adopted not out of a sense of ecological
responsibility but as a matter of despair. The Special Period was not meant to
be, nor was it primarily perceived as the beginning of a new era but as a time of exceptional
hardship. Consequently, many of the effects, both positive and negative, are
over: the country is back on track of economic growth, and the recovery
depends heavily on fuel-intensive long distance tourism and remittances
from relatives in capitalist Florida. Under-nutrition has all but disappeared but people also threw away
their Chinese bicycles and returned to more sedentary lives, and with it obesity levels have also reincreased, though not to their original levels. The “the largest conversion from conventional agriculture
to organic and semi-organic farming that the world has ever known” (Murphy, 1999) also failed to
transform the national food basis. Food, especially meat, milk, rice and beans, continues to be imported,
after 2002 mainly from the USA, and between 1997 and 2003 the production of poultry meat fell by
45%, beef by 20%, milk by 7%,fish and shellfish by 45% and rice by 26% (Meso-Lago, 2005). More
important, it failed to change general attitudes, as numerous farmers
continued to use fossil fuels and agro-chemicals, when they could, and
many declared they would use more if they had more (Wright, 2009). Today, living
standards fall short of many people’s expectations and the well educated search for opportunities
elsewhere (Carroll, 2010). However, conditions might well be different if it was widely accepted that a
return to the status quo ante was no option.
AT: TRAVEL BAN CP
Lifting the travel ban won’t increase people to people contacts – the regime will limit travel
Carbonell, 9 - international public affairs consultant (Nestor, “Think Again: Engaging Cuba
Why dealing with the Castro regime is a fool's errand” 4/10,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/04/09/think_again_engaging_cuba)
Cultural Exchanges and Tourism Can Hasten Political Change.
If only. Cultural exchanges would be great if U.S. students, professors, intellectuals, scientists, and artists
enjoyed in Cuba the same rights of mobility and expression that their Cuban counterparts are granted in
the United States. As for tourism, more than 15 million tourists have gone to
Cuba in the last 10 years, primarily from Canada and Europe. They have
had no discernable impact on the regime, other than providing hard
currency, and have had very limited interaction with the local population.
Under the existing system, a kind of apartheid on the Caribbean, Cubans are barred from
entering tourist enclaves (most of them are outside Havana) and penalized for
engaging in discussions or accepting publications deemed
counterrevolutionary. In any forthcoming negotiations, attempts should be made to remove
these barriers.
AT: OAS CP
OAS influence is low and decreasing
Isacson, 12 - senior associate for regional security at the Washington Office on Latin America (Adam,
“Conflict Resolution in the Americas: The Decline of the OAS” World Politics Review, 5/22,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/11979/conflict-resolution-in-the-americas-the-decline-ofthe-oas)
The conflict-resolution challenges of the near future are also uncertain. If
Colombia finally moves toward a negotiation with the FARC and ELN guerrillas, this will likely be an
endogenous process with little international input other than good offices. Regional cooperation against
organized crime may progress, but it will do so in the face of suspicions of corruption among
counterpart security forces and reluctance to share intelligence. Sharply diverging models of public
security will also lead to disagreements over whether to involve the military, negotiate with gangs or
focus on judicial reform. The influence in the region of new outside actors, such as
China, Iran, India and Russia, is still hard to gauge. And the possibility of instability
in Venezuela, where Chávez continues to battle against cancer with no heir apparent in his party
emerging, could alter the regional equation substantially.
Amid this uncertainty, it is sadly likely that the OAS, at least in its present form, will
have little role to play. The organization will not disappear: If only as a regional forum, it is
better to have it around than not, and no nation is proposing to leave it. But as it remains
peripheral to the region's principal security, diplomatic and conflictresolution concerns, it is only reasonable to expect the OAS to shrink in
relevance in coming years.
AT: NEOLIB/ CAP
Lifting trade barriers doesn’t force capitalism/ neoliberalism on Cuban society- it is a flawed
assumption to believe it does- LA study proves that countries determine their own fates
based on the shortcomings of past regimes
Cato Institute ‘09- public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of
individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent,
nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues. (Cato, “Cato Handbook for Policymakers: 7th Edition”, Cato,
2009, http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-57.pdf) //CW
Perhaps the
biggest shortcoming of U.S. policy toward Cuba is its false assumption that democratic
capitalism can somehow be forcibly exported from Washington to Havana. That assumption is explicitly stated in
the Helms-Burton Act, the first purpose of which is ‘‘to assist the Cuban people in regaining their freedom and prosperity, as well as in joining
the community of democratic countries that are flourishing in the Western Hemisphere.’’ But the
shift toward democratic
capitalism that began in the Western Hemisphere almost three decades ago had little to do with
Washington’s efforts to export democracy. Rather, it had to do with Latin America’s realization that
previous policies and regimes had failed to provide self-sustaining growth and increasing prosperity. By
the same token, the more recent rise of populism in some Latin-American countries is not the result of U.S. policy toward the region but a
result of those countries’ failure to implement a coherent set of mutually supportive market reforms. Those
outcomes, again,
depend entirely on Latin-American countries, not on the United States.
AT: SHUNNING
Free trade is a human right
Cato Institute ‘09- public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of
individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent,
nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues. (Cato, “Cato Handbook for Policymakers: 7th Edition”, Cato,
2009, http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-57.pdf) //CW
Second, the U.S. government should protect its own citizens’ inalienable rights and recognize that free
trade is itself a human right. As James Dorn of the Cato Institute says: ‘‘The supposed dichotomy between the right
to trade and human rights is a false one. . . . As moral agents, individuals necessarily claim the rights to
liberty and property in order to live fully and to pursue their interests in a responsible manner.’’ In the
case of Cuba, U.S. citizens and companies should be allowed to decide for themselves—as they are in
the case of dozens of countries around the world whose political and human rights records are less than
admirable—whether and how they should trade with it. Third, the U.S. government should also respect the right of
its own citizens to travel abroad freely and lift the travel ban to Cuba. Currently, U.S. citizens can travel more or less
freely to such countries as Iran and North Korea, but not to Cuba. Government bans on the free movement of people are
inconsistent with the values of freedom on which the United States was founded. As Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) puts
it, ‘‘If somebody should limit your travel, it should be a Communist. It should be someone other than us.’’ Fourth,
U.S. policy toward
Cuba should focus on national security interests, not on transforming Cuban society or micromanaging
the affairs of a transitional government as current law obliges Washington to do. That means lifting the
embargo and establishing the types of diplomatic ties with Cuba that the United States maintains with
other states, even dictatorial states that do not threaten its national security. Those measures,
especially the ending of current sanctions, will ensure a more peaceful and smooth transition in Cuba.
Blanket sanctions that deny privates unethically hurt the people
Cuba Study Group 13 – non partisan non for profit made up of business and professional
individuals with experience in Cuban US affairs (Cuba Study Group, Restoring Executive Authority Over
U.S. Policy Toward Cuba, Cuba Study Group, February 2013,
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7f2193cf-d2ef-45c8-91de0b1f88d30059)//BDS
Today a majority of U.S. voters, Cuban-Americans, and an emerging class of private economic actors and
democracy advocates in Cuba have all rejected isolation as an element of U.S. policy toward Cuba and
called on the U.S. government to implement a policy of greater contact and engagement with Cuban
civil society.viii As Cuba undergoes a slow and uncertain process of reforms, the continued existence of
blanket U.S. sanctions only hinders the types of reforms in Cuba that Helms-Burton demands.
a. Ethical considerations of Helms-Burton’s blanket sanctions
Helms-Burton has failed to advance the cause of freedom and prosperity for
the Cuban people. This is not surprising, since never in modern history has
there been a democratic transition in a country under a unilateral sanctions
framework as broad and severe as the one codified in Helms-Burton. Its
blanket sanctions lack ethical or moral consideration since they
indiscriminately impact all levels of Cuban society, from senior Cuban
officials to democracy advocates and private entrepreneurs. While it is no
secret that Cuban government policies are primarily to blame for the Island’s
economic crisis, their impact has only been exacerbated and made
disproportionately greater among the most vulnerable segments of the
population by the blanket sanctions codified under Helms-Burton. In addition, these
sanctions deny Cuba access to the international financial institutions it would need
to implement the type of macroeconomic reforms that U.S. policy has sought for more than
50 years. Helms-Burton preconditions the lifting of its blanket sanctions on sweeping political change in
Cuba. In practice, this “waiting game” has strengthened the relative power of the Cuban government
vis-à-vis the Cuban people while simultaneously giving the former a convenient scapegoat for its
oppressive practices and economic blunders.