WFI 13
Pre Camp
1
Cuba Aff
Cuba Aff
Cuba Aff ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1AC .............................................................................................................................................. 2
1AC – Plan ................................................................................................................................ 3
1AC – Solvency......................................................................................................................... 4
1AC – Advantage – Economy ................................................................................................... 6
1AC – Advantage – Democracy Promotion ........................................................................... 11
1AC – Advantage – Oil Drilling ............................................................................................... 17
1AC – Advantage – Hemispheric Relations ........................................................................... 22
Advantage – Democracy Promotion ......................................................................................... 31
Democracy Promotion – Inherency – Transition Now .......................................................... 32
Democracy Promotion – Solvency – New Strategy Key ........................................................ 33
Democracy Promotion – AT: Emboldens Hardliners ............................................................. 36
Democracy Promotion – Internal Link – Latin American key to Global Democracy Promotion
............................................................................................................................................... 38
Democracy Promotion – Impact – Terrorism ........................................................................ 40
Democracy Promotion – Impact – Laundry List .................................................................... 42
Democracy Promotion – Impact – Economic Growth ........................................................... 43
Democracy Promotion – Impact – War ................................................................................. 44
Democracy Promotion – Impact – Laundry List .................................................................... 45
Advantage – Economy ............................................................................................................... 46
Economy – Solvency – Spurs Growth .................................................................................... 47
Economy – Solvency – Relations Solve Economic Interdependence .................................... 49
Economy – Solvency – Trade Relations ................................................................................. 50
Economy – Solvency – Hemispheric Relations Key to Economy ........................................... 53
Advantage – Hemispheric Relations.......................................................................................... 56
Hemispheric Relations – Inherency – Embargo Makes US Look Bad .................................... 57
Hemispheric Relations – Inherency – Now is Key to Boost Relations ................................... 58
Hemispheric Relations – Solvency – Engagement Solves Relations ...................................... 59
Hemispheric Relations – Impact – Laundry List..................................................................... 64
Advantage – Oil Spills ................................................................................................................ 65
Oil Spills – Inherency – Spills Likely Now ............................................................................... 66
Oil Spills – Solvency – Relations Solve Environment ............................................................. 67
Oil Spills – Solvency – Lifting Embargo Solves Spills .............................................................. 72
Oil Spills – Internal Link – Global Spread ............................................................................... 73
Oil Spills – Impact – Key Biodiversity Hot Spot ...................................................................... 75
Oil Spills – Impact – Biodiversity............................................................................................ 76
AT: Health Care Disad ................................................................................................................ 77
Health Care DA – 2AC ............................................................................................................ 78
Health Care DA – N/U Ext ...................................................................................................... 81
AT: Health Care DA – Link Turn Ext ....................................................................................... 82
WFI 13
Pre Camp
2
Cuba Aff
1AC
WFI 13
Pre Camp
3
Cuba Aff
1AC – Plan
Plan: The United States federal government should repeal the embargo against
Cuba
WFI 13
Pre Camp
4
Cuba Aff
1AC – Solvency
[A.] The plan solves it is necessary to lift the embargo in its entirety
Johnson et al, 2010
[Andy Johnson, Director, National Security Program, Kyle Spector, Policy Advisor, National
Security Program, Kristina Lilac, National Security Program, Third Way Memo: End the Embargo
of Cuba, 9-16-10, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo__End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf] /Wyo-MB
Although the Obama administration took the largely symbolic step of extending ¶ the embargo
for another year under the Trading with the Enemy Act last year, the ¶ President did relax some
longstanding restrictions by taking action to make it easier ¶ for Cuban-Americans to visit and
send remittances to family members in Cuba.The ¶ administration also recently hinted at plans
to reduce travel restrictions for academic, ¶ cultural, and religious groups later this year.12 While
the executive branch can continue ¶ to chip away at these longstanding restrictions, the law
requires that Congress will ¶ ultimately need to pass legislation to repeal the embargo. Under
existing law, established by the Helms-Burton Act, the embargo cannot be ¶ lifted until the
Cuban people democratically elect a new government and the ¶ transition government is in
place. While President Obama could take an initial step by ¶ refusing to issue the annual
extension of Cuba’s “national emergency” status under ¶ the Trading with the Enemy Act,13
lifting the embargo will ultimately require that ¶ Congress pass and the President sign into
law legislation to repeal both the ¶ Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act. Passing HR 4645
would be a positive first ¶ step, but Congress will need to take further action to see that the
embargo is lifted in ¶ its entirety.
[B.] Lifting the embargo solves trade relations, serves to normalize relations
with Cuba, and boosts the US image with allies and Latin American powers
Zimmerman, 2010
[Chelsea, Barnard College, Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend
a Broken Policy,
http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf] /Wyo-MB
This proposal sets forth multiple reasons for the failure of the U.S. policy of ¶ economic sanctions to promote democracy in Cuba,
but I will now focus on the ¶ costs and benefits of a gradual modification of the current policy. The
U.S. needs ¶ to adopt a
new approach to Cuba that is not based on sanctions, passivity, and ¶ waiting. The U.S.
government should instead take a more pragmatic approach¶ when trying to encourage
change in Cuba, especially with the opportunity created ¶ by the change in leadership of both
countries and with the recent reforms ¶ announced by Raul Castro which will over time
eliminate the state’s information ¶ monopoly. The opportunities involved in gradually
loosening trade restrictions ¶ with Cuba and promoting cooperation on issues of mutual
benefit far outweigh the ¶ risks. Benefits for the U.S. in reducing financing restrictions and
travel restrictions ¶ with Cuba include the following: 1) U.S. agribusinesses will benefit from ¶
substantial revenue increases derived from a more significant share of food exports ¶ to Cuba,
from reduced transportation costs and delays caused by travel restrictions, ¶ and from the
elimination of cumbersome payment requirements; 2) the U.S. ¶ government will benefit from
additional tax revenues on the increase in sales; 3) ¶ funds wasted on attempts to delegitimize the Castro regime, such as Radio and TV ¶ Marti, estimated to be in excess of $35 million
annually, instead can be used for ¶ more productive purposes, such as academic and cultural exchanges; 4)
WFI 13
Pre Camp
5
Cuba Aff
the U.S. ¶ Treasury’s administrative expenses of
enforcing complex financing restrictions and ¶ investigating illegal
be reduced and ¶ redirected to a more practical use, such as
investigating terrorist networks abroad; ¶ and 5) improved foreign relations with some of the
U.S.’s most important allies ¶ including the European Union and OAS partners will result from
the reform ¶ measures (Sweig). Offsetting these benefits are the costs of enforcement of ¶ increased trade activities and
U.S. investments and travel to Cuba will
travel with Cuba as well as the reality that these ¶ measures will not force the collapse of Cuban communism or result in a rapid ¶
transition to a democratic government. ¶ The probability of implementing these changes within the next six months ¶ seems likely.
The political strength of the farm lobby has eclipsed the power of ¶ Florida’s Cuban-American community, which did not play a
significant role in the ¶ election of President Obama. Because all of these reform measures, with the ¶ exception of lifting the travel
ban, can be adopted through administrative action ¶ rather than Congressional or executive action,1¶ a political showdown would
not be ¶ necessary to accomplish these measures. ¶ VI. Conclusion ¶ Relaxing
U.S. trade restrictions will not result
in an immediate thaw in ¶ relations with Cuba. The Cuban government’s response may be
slow, as Raul ¶ Castro will need to factor in the changes in U.S. policy into the larger equation
of ¶ Cuban recovery and economic reform. Moving from a policy of isolation to one of ¶
investment and engagement will send a different message to Cuba and sets the stage ¶ for
fruitful trade possibilities and for normalizing relations between the two ¶ countries. In addition,
the United States will be sending a signal to other Latin ¶ America about its willingness to view
the world in cooperative terms. ¶ The current U.S. policy toward Cuba has been driven by history, without¶ taking into
account political and economic interests of both countries. A policy ¶ ¶ based on sanctions and regime change is
out of touch with the times, and is ¶ ¶ inconsistent and flawed in its intent and application. The
trade embargo imposed on ¶ ¶ Cuba reflects bad economics, bad business, bad national
security strategy, and bad ¶ ¶ global politics, and warrants a gradual revamping through
revised regulations and, ¶ ¶ ultimately, Congressional action.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
6
Cuba Aff
1AC – Advantage – Economy
[A.] US economic growth is tepid now, despite signs of recovery the economy
has a long way to go, expansion of trading partners is key to growth
China Daily, 6-15-13
[Staff, IMF: US economy to grow 2.7 percent in 2014,
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2013-06/15/content_16624533.htm] /Wyo-MB
WASHINGTON - The International Monetary Fund (IMF) on Friday lowered its forecast of U.S.
economic growth to 2. 7 percent next year, 0.3 percentage point lower than its April
prediction against the backdrop of the government spending cuts.¶ The scaling down in the forecasted
economic growth rate was largely due to the ongoing automatic budget cuts across the federal governmental departments, also
known as sequester, which will be affecting economic recovery next year, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said at a press
conference Friday.¶ The
U.S. economic growth is expected to slow to 1.9 percent this year owing to
an excessively rapid pace of fiscal deficit reduction, the same as its April prediction, the IMF said in a concluding
statement after an annual review of U.S. economic and financial situations.¶ "The U.S. recovery has remained tepid
over the past year, but underlying fundamentals have been gradually improving." The modest
growth rate of 2.2 percent last year reflected legacy effects from the financial crisis, fiscal deficit reduction, a weak external
environment and temporary effects of extreme weather-related events, noted the statement.¶ Despite
these headwinds,
the nature of the recovery appears to be changing. In particular, home prices and house construction activity
have rebounded, along with strengthening of household balance sheets and improvement of labor market conditions, and corporate
profitability and balance sheets remain strong, especially for large firms, said the Washington-based global lender.¶ The
U.S.
economic recovery is "gaining ground and becoming more durable," and the housing market
and labor market are doing better, supported by the U.S. Federal Reserve's easy monetary policy. But the
economy still has "way to go" before returning to full strength, Lagarde told reporters.¶ The
ongoing sequester is a major risk for U.S. economic growth. Another fiscal worry is doing too little further down the road on fiscal
consolidation after having done too much in the short term, she stressed. ¶ The IMF suggested the United States should repeal the
sequester and adopt a more balanced and gradual pace of fiscal consolidation in the short term.¶ The sequester was included in the
August 2011 debt-ceiling package to force lawmakers to come up with a long-term deficit reduction plan. After the failure to
produce such a plan in November 2011, a total of more than 1 trillion U.S. dollars cuts over a decade were triggered starting this
year, or about 109 billion dollars per year.¶ The Fed's quantitative easing (QE) monetary measures have been "extremely useful" in
bolstering economic growth and should continue. The IMF predicted the Fed to maintain its current asset purchase program until
the end of this year and that the Fed should carefully manage its QE exit plan to avoid disrupting the markets, Lagarde noted.¶ As
the legacy of the financial crisis wanes further, private domestic demand in the world's largest
economy is expected to continue recovering, but weak growth in a number of trading partners
is projected to weigh on U.S. export growth, according to the statement.
[B.] The status quo enforcement of the embargo drains the US economy
Hanson, Batten, and Ealey, 2013
[Daniel, Dayne, and Harrison, Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American
Enterprise Institute. Dayne Batten is affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department
of Public Policy. Harrison Ealey is a financial analyst, It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless
Embargo Of Cuba, 1-16-13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-theu-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/] /Wyo-MB
Despite this progress, the U.S. spends massive amounts of money trying to keep illicit Cuban
goods out of the United States. At least 10 different agencies are responsible for enforcing
different provisions of the embargo, and according to the Government Accountability Office,
the U.S. government devotes hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man
hours to administering the embargo each year.¶ At the Miami International Airport, visitors
arriving from a Cuban airport are seven times more likely to be stopped and subjected to further
WFI 13
Pre Camp
7
Cuba Aff
customs inspections than are visitors from other countries. More than 70 percent of the
Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control inspections each year are centered on rooting out
smuggled Cuban goods even though the agency administers more than 20 other trade bans.
Government resources could be better spent on the enforcement of other sanctions, such as
illicit drug trade from Columbia, rather than the search for contraband cigars and rum.¶ Yet,
estimates of the sanctions’ annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6 billion,
according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions on trade disproportionately affect
U.S. small businesses who lack the transportation and financial infrastructure to skirt the
embargo. These restrictions translate into real reductions in income and employment for
Americans in states like Florida, where the unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent.
[C.] removing the embargo is key to accessing oil revenue in Cuba
Fesler, 2009
[Lily, Research Associate The council on hemispheric relations, Cuban Oil: Havana's Potential
Geo-Political Bombshell, Washington Report on the Hemisphere29. 11. (Jun 18, 2009), Accessed
online via Proquest] Wyo-MB
Desperate to end its dependence on oil from the Middle East, United States' officials are
certainly aware of Cuba's oil-producing potential. In its 2004 assessment, the U.S. Geological
survey found that Cuba has five billion barrels of crude oil off its northern shores; Havana
claims it has twenty billion. Five billion barrels would put Cuba on par with Colombia or
Ecuador, while twenty billion barrels would make Cuba's oil capacity comparable to that of
the United States' and place it among the top fifteen oil reserves in the world. Either way,
Cuba's oil is attracting the attention of oil companies from around the globe. At the moment,
Spain's Repsol, Brazil's Petrobras, and Norway's StatoilHydro are overseeing exploratory drilling
in the Gulf of Mexico. India, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Venezuela also have signed deals with
Cuba.¶ Havana has publicly stated that it welcomes American investment, but U.S. oil
companies are incapable of proceeding without an official go-ahead from Washington. As Juan
Fleites, vice president of Havana's state oil company Cubapetroleo, said, "We are open to U.S.
oil companies interested in exploration, production and services." U.S. oil tycoons have shown
definite interest, but Kurt Glaubitz, a spokesman for Chevron, explained, "Until trade barriers
are removed, Chevron is unable to do business in Cuba. Companies like us would have to see a
change in U.S. policy before we evaluate whether there's interest." The aforementioned
foreign companies already have contracted for Cuba's twenty-one of the fifty-nine offshore
drilling blocks, and another twenty- three blocks are currently under negotiation by other
foreign nations, including Russia and China.¶ A U.S. Stake in Cuban Oil?¶ It is not too late for the
U.S. to develop a stake in Cuba's nascent oil output. It takes between three and five years to
develop oil reserves, and as of yet, there has been no major oil discovery off the island. Repsol
struck oil in 2004, but not enough to sell commercially. Several other foreign firms are currently
using seismic testing, which assesses the oil content of potential deposits, after which they will
probably begin exploring in 2010 or 2011. The exploration manager for Cubapetroleo, Rafael
Tenreyro Pérez, has called the incoming results from seismic testing in Cuba's reserves "very
encouraging."¶ After lifting the embargo, U.S. oil companies could most likely work out an
arrangement whereby the U.S. would exchange its reserves with nearby holdings of foreign
companies, allowing the U.S. access to Cuba's oil even after all of the contracts had been
signed. This could save transportation costs appreciably, because U.S. companies wouldn't
have to go halfway around the world in search of oil refineries, with Cuba only 90 miles away.¶
U.S. oil equipment and service companies like Halliburton, however, already have lost the
opportunity to build refineries, pipelines, and ports, sacrificing tens of millions of dollars in
WFI 13
Pre Camp
8
Cuba Aff
revenue. U.S. companies' oil contracts are not just significant for their own potential profits,
but also for American consumers' access to reasonably priced neighboring oil. With oil prices
recovering from a December low of $32.40 a barrel back to around $70 a barrel, access to more
oil sources could become a matter of serious importance.
[D.] Lifting the embargo solves trade relations and boosts the US economy
Zimmerman, 2010
[Chelsea, Barnard College, Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend
a Broken Policy,
http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf] /Wyo-MB
Trade levels between Cuba and the U.S. could reach $5 billion annually by ¶ removing the
trade embargo, resulting in a boost to American agribusinesses while ¶ also helping to alleviate
hunger among Cubans. A policy environment open to ¶ international trade and investment is a
necessary ingredient to sustain higher rates ¶ of economic growth and to promote political
freedom through exposure to new ¶ technology, communications, and democratic ideas
(Griswold, 1; Sachs and ¶ Warner). Allowing Cuba to more freely import U.S. food is a means of
lowering ¶ domestic prices and increasing incomes of the poor, food availability and domestic ¶
production. U.S. companies will introduce new technologies and production ¶ methods, while
raising wages and labor standards as a result of trading with Cuba. ¶ The additional creation of
wealth will help to advance social, political, and ¶ economic conditions independent of the
governing authorities in Cuba. The most ¶ economically open countries today are more than
three times as likely to enjoy full ¶ political and civil freedoms as those that are relatively closed
(Griswold, 1). ¶ Lifting certain trade restrictions would assist Cuba in its efforts to recover ¶ from
the damage caused by its recent hurricanes. If the U.S. exempted construction ¶ equipment and
agricultural machinery from the Cuban trade ban through regulatory ¶ action, the Cuban people
could benefit from the loosening of restrictions without ¶ overhauling the entire embargo. ¶ By
allowing free travel to and from Cuba, potential for the marketing and ¶ sale of agricultural
and medical goods would expand enormously, further boosting ¶ the economies of the U.S.
and Cuba. The U.S. International Trade Commission ¶ estimated that if travel restrictions to
Cuba were lifted, the number of U.S. travelers ¶ would increase from less than 200,000 to
between 550,00 and one million annually ¶ (U.S. International Trade Commission). The increase
in U.S. visitors would in turn ¶ increase demand for more and higher quality goods and would
provide more money ¶ for the government to purchase U.S. goods, according to the
Commission report. ¶ Allowing U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba would boost the tourism industry
in the ¶ U.S. and create thousands of new jobs. Even lifting the travel restrictions on groups ¶ or
individuals directly engaged in U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba would be a ¶ significant
advancement. Business leaders and entrepreneurs from the U.S. would ¶ gain a competitive
edge by having the opportunity to travel to Cuba and becoming ¶ familiar with the Cuban
market and meting face-to-face with their Cuban ¶ counterparts.
[E.] lifting the embargo solves trade relations with Cuba, bolsters the economy,
and boosts ties to Latin America
Fesler, 2009
[Lily, Research Associate The council on hemispheric relations, Cuban Oil: Havana's Potential
Geo-Political Bombshell, Washington Report on the Hemisphere29. 11. (Jun 18, 2009), Accessed
online via Proquest] Wyo-MB
WFI 13
Pre Camp
9
Cuba Aff
As the Obama administration slowly inches towards normalizing its relations with Cuba,
pressure is mounting on the new president to lift the decades-old and universally
acknowledged anachronistic embargo. In order to underline the many impacts of the embargo,
this article continues COHAs ongoing series on U. S. -Cuba bilateral relations. A relic of the Cold
War, the Cuban embargo witnessed the loss of its stated purpose years ago and is now
gratuitously hobbling the diplomacy of Cuba and the United States. At the same time, Cuba is
struggling to pay for necessary imports and provide energy sources for its people. A lift of the
"blockade," as many Cubans call the embargo, would give Havana the opportunity to repay
some of its debts and afford everyday necessities. Normalized relations would give the U.S.
access to Cuban oil exploration and drilling, and allow the U.S. to implement environmental
regulations aimed at protecting the Florida coast from potential oil spills. Enhanced trade with
Cuba could generate up to $1.9 billion for the U.S.'s cash-strapped economy, and the image of
the U.S. in Latin America undoubtedly would encounter a much-needed boost. Very few deny
that both nations would benefit from the embargo's end and trade normalization.
[F.] those trade relations allow the United States to overcome economic decline
Brookings 8
(The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric
Partnership for a Turbulent World
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx)
The advent of a new administration 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 Western Hemisphere’s
countries remain interdependent; 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 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 prices and large capital inflows. Several countries have
amassed sizable international reserves. But 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.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
10
Cuba Aff
[G.] Economic decline causes protectionism and war
Royal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic
Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and
Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political
science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense
behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable
contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle
theory, finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a preeminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such
as economic crisis could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads
to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995).
Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power
may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined
with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that
the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic
level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory
of trade expectations suggests that ‘future expectation of trade’
is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavious of
states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so
long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations, However, if the expectations of future
trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict
increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crisis could potentially be the trigger
for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent
states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed
conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal
conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages
between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal
conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international
and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with an increase in
the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external
tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ‘Diversionary
theory’ suggests
facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have
increase incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a ‘rally around the flag’
effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic
that, when
decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest
that the
tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic
states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of
domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States,
and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic
scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political
science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection
between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more
attention.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
11
Cuba Aff
1AC – Advantage – Democracy Promotion
[A.] Current policy toward Cuba destroys effective democracy and humans
rights promotion
Amash, 2012
[Brandon, Contributing writer of Prospect Journal of International Affairs at UCSD, EVALUATING
THE CUBAN EMBARGO, 7-22-12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cubanembargo/] /Wyo-MB
Ayubi, Bissell, Korsah and Lerner suggest that “the purpose of sanctions is to bring about
behavior seen as in conformity with the goals and standards of a society and to prevent
behavior that is inconsistent with these goals and standards” (Ayubi 1). These goals and
standards, in the Cuban context, would be democracy and a vested interest in human rights.
However, the sanctions that the United States has placed on Cuba in the past half century have
done little to address the systematic violations of human rights in Cuba.
§ 3.1: The American embargo is not sufficient to democratize Cuba and improve human rights.
Without the help and support of multilateral institutions, economic sanctions on Cuba have
been ineffective. As other states trade and interact freely with Cuba, the lack of partnership
with America is only a minor hindrance to Cuba’s economy. Moreover, the sanctions are
detrimental to the United States economy, as Cuba could potentially be a geostrategic
economic partner. More importantly, since economic sanctions are not directly related to the
goal of improved human rights, the effect of these sanctions is also unrelated; continued
economic sanctions against Cuba create no incentive for the Cuban government to promote
better human rights, especially when the sanctions do not have international support.
Empirically, it is clear that since its inception, the policy has not succeeded in promoting
democratization or improving human rights. Something more must be done in order to
improve the situation. § 3.2: American sanctions during the Cold War strengthened Castro’s
ideological position and created opportunities for involvement by the Soviet Union, thereby
decreasing the likelihood of democratization and improvement in human rights. Cuba’s
revolution could not have come at a worse time for America. The emergence of a communist
state in the western hemisphere allowed the Soviet Union to extend its influence, and the
United States’ rejection of Cuba only widened the window of opportunity for Soviet
involvement. The embargo also became a scapegoat for the Castro administration, which laid
blame for poor human rights conditions on the embargo policy itself (Fontaine 18 – 22).
Furthermore, as Ratliff and Fontaine suggest, isolating Cuba as an enemy of democracy during
the Cold War essentially made the goals of democratization in the country unachievable
(Fontaine 30). While the embargo may have been strategic during the Cold War as a bulwark
against communism, the long-term effects of the policy have essentially precluded the
possibility for democracy in Cuba. Even after the end of the Cold War, communism persists in
Cuba and human rights violations are systemic; America’s policy has not achieved its goals and
has become a relic of the Cold War era. The prospects for democracy and improvement in
human rights seem as bleak as ever.
[B.] Removing the embargo bolsters US-Cuban relations and solve the
promotion of democracy and human rights in Cuba and abroad
Amash, 2012
WFI 13
Pre Camp
12
Cuba Aff
[Brandon, Contributing writer of Prospect Journal of International Affairs at UCSD, EVALUATING
THE CUBAN EMBARGO, 7-22-12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cubanembargo/] /Wyo-MB
Although America’s previous policies of intervention, use of force and economic sanctions have
all failed at achieving democratization in Cuba, not all options have been exhausted. One policy
alternative for promoting democracy and human rights in Cuba that the United States has not
attempted is the exact opposite of the approach it has taken for the past half century.
Namely, the United States should lift the embargo on Cuba and reopen diplomatic relations in
order to work internationally on improving human rights in Cuba. Unless Cuba, as a rogue
state, is isolated internationally, rather than merely by the United States, the human rights
situation in Cuba may never improve. A fresh policy of engagement towards Cuba has been
delayed long enough.¶ § 4.1: Reopening diplomatic relations with Cuba will decrease the
chances of conflict and will promote cooperation between the two countries economically,
politically and socially. Diplomatic relations and negotiations have proven to be effective in
the past in similar situations, such as the renewed relations between Egypt and Israel following
the Camp David Accords. As Huddleston and Pascual state, “a great lesson of democracy is that
it cannot be imposed; it must come from within. […] Our policy should therefore encompass
the political, economic, and diplomatic tools to enable the Cuban people to engage in and
direct the politics of their country” (Huddleston 14). The mobilization of the Cuban people on
the issues of democratization, which are inherently linked to the human rights violations in
Cuba, is a first step to producing changes in Cuba. American engagement with the Cuban
people, currently lacking under the embargo policy, will provide the impetus in Cuban society
to produce regime change. Furthermore, integrating U.S.-Cuba relations on a multilateral level
will ease the burden on the United States in fostering democracy and a better human rights
record in the country, as other states will be more involved in the process. In contrast to a
policy of isolation, normalized relations will allow America to engage Cuba in new areas,
opening the door for democratization and human rights improvements from within the Cuban
state itself.¶ § 4.2: With diplomatic relations in place, the United States may directly promote
human rights in the country through negotiations, conferences, arbitration and mediation.
Providing the support, resources, and infrastructure to promote democratic systems in Cuba
could produce immense improvements to the human rights situation in the nation.
Normalizing diplomatic relations with the state will also allow America to truly support
freedom of opinion and expression in Cuba, which it cannot currently promote under the
isolationist policy. Furthermore, through diplomatic relations and friendly support, Cuba will
be more willing to participate in the international system, as well as directly with the United
States, as an ally. As the United States, along with the international community as a whole,
helps and supports Cuba’s economic growth, Cuban society will eventually push for greater
protection of human rights.¶ § 4.3: Lifting economic sanctions will improve economic growth in
Cuba, which correlates to democratization. Empirical evidence shows that a strong economy is
correlated to democracy. According to the Modernization Theory of democratization, this
correlation is a causal link: economic growth directly leads to democratization. Lifting the
current economic sanctions on Cuba and working together to improve economic situations in
the state will allow their economy to grow, increasing the likelihood of democracy in the
state, and thus promoting greater freedom of expression, opinion and dissent.¶ § 4.4: A policy
of engagement will be a long-term solution to promoting democracy and improving human
rights in Cuba. This proposal, unique in that it is simply one of abandoning an antiquated
policy and normalizing relations to be like those with any other country, does not present any
large obstacles to implementation, either in the short run or the long run. The main challenge
WFI 13
Pre Camp
13
Cuba Aff
is in continuing to support such a policy and maintaining the normal diplomatic, economic and
social relations with a country that has been isolated for such a long period of time. Although
effects of such a policy may be difficult to determine in the short term, promoting democracy
and improving human rights in Cuba are long-term solutions. As discussed above, engagement
with the Cuban government and society, along with support from the international
community, will provide the spark and guidance for the Cuban people to support and promote
democracy, and thus give greater attention to human rights violations.¶ § 5. Conclusions:¶
Instead of continued economic sanctions on Cuba, the United States should reopen diplomatic
relations with Cuba, work multilaterally and use soft power to promote democracy and
greater attention to human rights. This policy approach will decrease the hostility between
the United States and Cuba, and cause Cuba to be more willing to participate internationally
with attention to human rights violations. After the end of the Cold War, United States foreign
policy has found new directions, and the embargo, as a relic of a different time, must be
removed should the United States wish to gain any true ground in promoting human rights in
Cuba.
[C.] Lifting the embargo is key to the credibility of United States democracy
promotion and hemispheric relations
Huddleston and Pascual, 2010
[Vicki and Carlos, Leaders of Advisory group for policy recommendations on Cuba, Vicki is
deputy assistant secretary for Africa at the Department of Defense and Carlos is ambassador to
Mexico, Learning to Salsa: New Steps in U.S.-Cuba Relations, Brookings Institutions Press 2010]
/Wyo-MB
U.S. policy toward Cuba should advance the democratic aspirations of the Cuban people and
strengthen U.S. credibility throughout the hemisphere. Our nearly 50-year-old policy toward
Cuba has failed on both counts: it has resulted in a downward spiral of U.S. influence on the
island and has left the United States isolated in the hemisphere and beyond. Our Cuba policy
has become a bellwether, indicating the extent to which the United States will act in
partnership with the region or unilaterally— and ineffectually. Inevitably, strategic contact
and dialogue with the Cuban government will be necessary if the United States seeks to
engage the Cuban people. This book proposes a new goal for U.S. policy toward Cuba: to
support the emergence of a Cuban state where the Cuban people determine the political and
economic future of their country through democratic means. A great lesson of democracy is
that it cannot be imposed; it must come from within. The type of government at the helm of
the island’s future will depend on Cubans. Our policy should therefore encompass the political,
economic, and diplomatic tools to enable the Cuban people to engage in and direct the
politics of their country. This policy will advance the interests of the United States in seeking
stable relationships based on common hemispheric values that promote the well-being of each
individual and the growth of civil society. To engage the Cuban government and Cuban people
effectively, the United States will need to engage with other governments, the private sector,
and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In so doing, U.S. policy toward Cuba would reflect
the hemisphere’s and our own desire to encourage the Cuban government to adopt
international standards of democracy, human rights, and transparency.
[D.] Effective democracy promotion is key to solve global conflict
Lagon, 2011
WFI 13
Pre Camp
14
Cuba Aff
[Mark, adjunct Senior Fellow for Human Rights Council of Foreign Relations, February 2011,
Promoting Democracy: The Whys and Hows for the United States and the International
Community, http://www.cfr.org/democracy-promotion/promoting-democracy-whys-howsunited-states-international-community/p24090] /Wyo-MB
Furthering democracy is often dismissed as moralism distinct from U.S. interests or mere lip
service to build support for strategic policies. Yet there are tangible stakes for the United States
and indeed the world in the spread of democracy—namely, greater peace, prosperity, and
pluralism. Controversial means for promoting democracy and frequent mismatches between
deeds and words have clouded appreciation of this truth.¶ ¶ Democracies often have conflicting
priorities, and democracy promotion is not a panacea. Yet one of the few truly robust findings
in international relations is that established democracies never go to war with one another.
Foreign policy “realists” advocate working with other governments on the basis of interests,
irrespective of character, and suggest that this approach best preserves stability in the world.
However, durable stability flows from a domestic politics built on consensus and peaceful
competition, which more often than not promotes similar international conduct for
governments.
[E.] Democracy promotion solves terrorism
Curtis, 2011
[Lisa, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage
Foundation, Championing Liberty Abroad to Counter Islamist Extremism, 2-9-11,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/championing-liberty-abroad-to-counterislamist-extremism] /Wyo-MB
The Obama Administration needs to prioritize the promotion of democracy and individual
freedom as part of its foreign policy agenda. This is particularly important in Muslim countries
where repression and intolerance can foster development of extremist movements that feed
global terrorism.¶ Recent statements from President Obama and other senior Administration
officials signaling strong support for democratic development in other countries are
encouraging. The Administration should continue to demonstrate its commitment to nurturing
democratic development both through public statements and through aid programs that
account for the particular circumstances of individual countries. In doing so, the U.S. would not
only adhere to its founding principles and help to secure freedom for others, but also protect
its national security by uprooting support for extremist ideologies that lead to global
terrorism.
[F.] Relations with Cuba is key to winning the war on terror
US-Cuba Policy and Business Blog 10
("United States Cuba Relations - Terror Designation," January 5,
http://uscuba.blogspot.com/2010/01/unitedstates-cuba-relations-terrorist.html)
As long as we have poor relations with Cuba, we are effectively opening the door to our
adversaries. It is in the strategic interests of our country to have normal relations with Cuba.
As long as we deprive Cuba of socioeconomic engagement, Cuba will seek it elsewhere. Why
do you think our adversaries are gaining a foothold on our doorstep in the Western
hemisphere? That Cuba has a government we do not agree with or like how it treats its own
citizens, our embargo and preventing U.S. citizens from freely visiting Cuba has not
accomplished anything to change our island neighbor. Keeping Cuba on this list is simply an
WFI 13
Pre Camp
15
Cuba Aff
obstacle and not any real protection from our true enemy, Al Qaeda, and its weapon,
terrorism . That is who we are at war with, not Cuba.
ns in Havana.
[G.] Nuclear terrorist attack causes super power war
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)
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear
worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast
can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in
significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war
major nuclear weapons states have hundreds
and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange
would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the
taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear
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
exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of
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. t 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
if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American
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 nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively,
officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would
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
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
proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time.
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.
the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear
For example, in
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.
[H.] Lashout will be widespread and cause extinction
Nicole Schwartz-Morgan, Assistant Professor of Politics and Economics at Royal Military
College of Canada, 10/10/2001, “Wild Globalization and Terrorism,”
http://www.wfs.org/mmmorgan.htm
The terrorist act can reactivate atavistic defense mechanisms which drive us to gather around
clan chieftans. Nationalistic sentiment re-awakens, setting up an implacable frontier which
divides "us" from "them," each group solidifying its cohesion in a rising hate/fear of the other
group. (Remember Yugoslavia?) To be sure, the allies are trying for the moment to avoid the
language of polarization, insisting that "this is not a war," that it is "not against Islam,"
WFI 13
Pre Camp
16
Cuba Aff
"civilians will not be targeted." But the word "war" was pronounced, a word heavy with
significance which forces the issue of partisanship. And it must be understood that the
sentiment of partisanship, of belonging to the group, is one of the strongest of human emotions.
Because the enemy has been named in the media (Islam), the situation has become
emotionally volatile. Another spectacular attack, coming on top of an economic recession
could easily radicalize the latent attitudes of the United States, and also of Europe, where
racial prejudices are especially close to the surface and ask no more than a pretext to burst out.
This is the Sarajevo syndrome: an isolated act of madness becomes the pretext for a war that
is just as mad, made of ancestral rancor, measureless ambitions, and armies in search of a
war. We should not be fooled by our expressions of good will and charity toward the innocent
victims of this or other distant wars. It is our own comfortable circumstances which permit us
these benevolent sentiments. If conditions change so that poverty and famine put the fear of
starvation in our guts, the human beast will reappear. And if epidemic becomes a clear and
present danger, fear will unleash hatred in the land of the free, flinging missiles
indiscriminately toward any supposed havens of the unseen enemy. And on the other side, no
matter how profoundly complex and differentiated Islamic nations and tribes may be, they
will be forced to behave as one clan by those who see advantage in radicalizing the conflict,
whether they be themselves merchants or terrorists.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
17
Cuba Aff
1AC – Advantage – Oil Drilling
[A.] Deepwater drilling in Cuba makes oil spills likely, the embargo makes spill
management impossible
Bert and Clayton, 2012
[Captain Melissa Bert, USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S.Coast Guard, and Blake Clayton,
Fellow for Energy and National Security Council on Foreign relations, March 2012, Addressing
the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515]
/Wyo-MB
Deepwater drilling off the Cuban coast also poses a threat to the United States. The
exploratory well is seventy miles off the Florida coast and lies at a depth of 5,800 feet. The failed
Macondo well that triggered the calamitous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had
broadly similar features, situated forty-eight miles from shore and approximately five thousand
feet below sea level. A spill off Florida's coast could ravage the state's $57 billion per year
tourism industry.¶ Washington cannot count on the technical know-how of Cuba's
unseasoned oil industry to address a spill on its own. Oil industry experts doubt that it has a
strong understanding of how to prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well
blowout. Moreover, the site where the first wells will be drilled is a tough one for even
seasoned response teams to operate in. Unlike the calm Gulf of Mexico, the surface currents in
the area where Repsol will be drilling move at a brisk three to four knots, which would bring oil
from Cuba's offshore wells to the Florida coast within six to ten days. Skimming or burning the
oil may not be feasible in such fast-moving water. The most, and possibly only, effective method
to respond to a spill would be surface and subsurface dispersants. If dispersants are not applied
close to the source within four days after a spill, uncontained oil cannot be dispersed, burnt, or
skimmed, which would render standard response technologies like containment booms
ineffective.¶ Repsol has been forthcoming in disclosing its spill response plans to U.S. authorities
and allowing them to inspect the drilling rig, but the Russian and Chinese companies that are
already negotiating with Cuba to lease acreage might not be as cooperative. Had Repsol not
volunteered to have the Cuba-bound drilling rig examined by the U.S. Coast Guard and Bureau
of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to certify that it met international standards,
Washington would have had little legal recourse.¶ The complexity of U.S.-Cuba relations since
the 1962 trade embargo complicates even limited efforts to put in place a spill response plan.
Under U.S. law and with few exceptions, American companies cannot assist the Cuban
government or provide equipment to foreign companies operating in Cuban territory.
[B.] Spills collapse the marine environment – relations are key
Pinon 10 (Jorge, Former president of Amoco Oil Latin America and Member of the Brookings
Cuba Task Force, "Deal needed to protect our seas," Miami Herald, October 5,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/05/1857743/deal-needed-to-protect-our-seas.html)
In a recent meeting with the Miami Herald's editorial board Rear Admiral William D. Baumgartner, the head of United States Coast
Guard Seventh District, recognized
the fact that Cuba and the United States do not have an
emergency response agreement for oil spills. The catastrophic Deepwater Horizon incident has
demonstrated the challenge of managing oil spills along with their complexity and magnitude.
An oil spill in Cuba's waters could threaten hundreds of miles of coastline and marine habitats
in Florida and the Bahamas. The urgency for an agreement on protocols of cooperation between the U.S. and Cuba to
respond quickly and effectively to any incident that threatens either country's marine and coastal habitats
becomes evident as Spanish oil company Repsol moves closer in drilling the Jagüey prospect in Cuba's Strait of Florida waters. The
WFI 13
Pre Camp
18
Cuba Aff
1983 Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena
Convention) and the 1990 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, of which both Cuba
and the United States are signatories, provides an umbrella under which both countries could develop such a bilateral agreement.
Closer relations with Cuba in the environmental arena would help to emphasize the need for
contingency planning and cooperation in an effort to minimize the damage from potential oil
spills which respect no boundaries, making joint cross-border programs critical.
[C.] Oil spills destroy the marine biodiversity
Smith 10 (S.E., "How do Oil Spills Affect Marine Life," wiseGeek?, December 7,
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-do-oil-spills-affect-marine-life.htm)
One of the most direct ways in which oil spills affect marine life is by essentially suffocating
plants and animals. Marine plants can be covered in a film of oil which prevents oxygen and
water exchange, causing the plants to die. Marine life which feed on this vegetation will in
turn struggle to survive. Coatings of oil on the flesh of birds and mammals can literally kill
them through suffocation. Oil spills also affect marine life such as birds by stripping the water resistant coating from their
feathers. A bird weighed down by oil may have difficulty flying, and will develop hypothermia as a result of exposure to extremely
cold water. Mammals also suffer, as oil can remove water resistant compounds from the coats of furred marine life like otters and
seals. Oil
spills affect marine life like filter feeders by concentrating in the flesh of these animals.
Clams, mussels, and oysters may quickly accumulate toxins which can kill the animals or be
passed on along the food chain. Human consumers often complain that shellfish harvested from an area impact by an
oil spill taste heavy and oily. Animals that rely on these filter feeders for food may become sick and die as a result of consuming
them. When
oil spills affect marine life, it usually happens at multiple levels of the food chain,
representing a lot of work to fix the problem. The inhalation and ingestion of compounds related to oil spills can
also harm marine life, both in the long and short term. In the long term, oil spills affect marine life by interfering
with the ability to breed, reproduce, grow, or perform other vital functions. Toxins in oil can also
cause cancers and other illnesses in the long term. If left untreated, the area around an oil spill can be
denuded of life. Fortunately, there are ways to clean up oil spills. In addition to chemicals, ecologists also use bacteria which
thrive on the compounds in oil to digest it and render it less harmful.
[D.] Marine biodiversity is key to ecosystem health and global biodiversity
W.O.R., 2010
[World Ocean reveiew, 2010, Marine biodiversity – a vital resource,
http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/marine-ecosystem/biodiversity/] /Wyo-MB
For a long time the significance of biological diversity in the world’s oceans was unclear. It is
now known to play a vital role in maintaining the functionality and productivity of ecosystems.
It also makes habitats more resilient to environmental change. But the well-balanced species
communities are becoming increasingly unstable. The rapid disappearance of species¶
Biological diversity in the oceans has decreased dramatically since industrialization began in the
19th century. The primary causes for the losses include the destruction of habitats by trawler
fishing, pollution and eutrophication of the seas, as well as the steady progress of climate
change. Biological diversity is probably declining more rapidly than ever before in the history of
the Earth. But at the same time, only a small fraction of the species in the deep sea and polar
oceans have so far been identified, making the loss of species in the oceans much more
difficult to record and evaluate than on land.¶ Why is marine biodiversity important?¶ Every
ecosystem performs certain functions that are critically important for organisms. One of the
most important functions of marine ecosystems is the production of plant biomass from
sunlight and nutrients (primary productivity), which represents the basic food source for all life
in the ocean, and ultimately also for humans. Around half of the worldwide primary
productivity is achieved by microscopically small plants, the phytoplankton, which grow and
WFI 13
Pre Camp
19
Cuba Aff
divide in the ocean. Another function performed by ecosystems is the creation of habitats, or
structures, in coastal ecosystems. For example, macroalgae, seagrass and corals form large
undersea forests, meadows or reefs that provide habitats for many other species such as
molluscs, crustaceans and fish. Kelp forests and seagrass meadows in the Baltic Sea are vital
habitats for the fry and juvenile fish that grow up here before swimming into the open ocean as
adults. Gastropods and small crustaceans likewise feed on microalgae growing on the kelp or
seagrass. They thereby ensure that the structure-forming plants are not smothered, and are
allowed to grow – that is their contribution to the ecosystem. The molluscs and crustaceans that
feed on microalgae are the basic food source for larger predatory crustaceans and fish.¶ Seagrass
and kelp itself have relatively long life spans because they are poor food sources for grazing
crustaceans and molluscs. They store nutrients in their biomass for a long time, including
nitrogen and phosphorous compounds transported by rivers from agricultural areas to the sea.
Seagrass and macroalgae thus function as a kind of biological purification system in coastal
ecosystems.¶ Scientists have addressed the question of whether the dramatic decline in
biological diversity has consequences for the stable functioning of ecosystems. After 10 years
of intensive study, the answer is clear – yes, it does. Experiments in coastal ecosystems,
particularly seagrass meadows and kelp forests, have shown that biological diversity in the
oceans is essential for maintaining the ecosystem functions described above. Species diversity
was decreased in various ways during these experiments in order to compare the ecosystem
functions of species-rich with species-poor areas. In one field experiment, for example, the
number of seaweed species was artificially reduced by removing some at the beginning of the
growth period. The total algal biomass in this species-poor area did, in fact, decrease, thereby
resulting in a decline in the food for consumers as well as the number of available habitats. In
another experiment, the number of grazing species that feed on the microalgae growing on
seagrass was reduced. It was found that the species-poor grazer communities consumed fewer
microalgae than species-rich communities. The shortage of grazing species resulted in a slower
growth of seagrass because the increased growth of microalgae repressed photosynthesis in the
seagrass.¶ These two experiments indicate that a decrease in biological diversity has a negative
impact on the structure of the habitat, regardless of whether the number of species of
producers (macroalgae) or consumers (grazers) is reduced.
[E.] BIODIVERSITY LOSS RISKS EXTINCTION
Peter Montague, “The Four Horsemen—Part 2: Loss of Biodiversity,” Rachel’s Enviornment &
Health News, December 14, 1995, http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=651.
Extinctions are dangerous for humans, but it is not immediately clear just how dangerous. In
their 1984 book, EXTINCTION, Paul and Anne Ehrlich compare our situation to an airplane held
together by rivets. As time goes on, an occasional rivet will pop out. No single rivet is essential
for maintaining flight, but eventually if we pop enough rivets, a crash seems certain to occur. So
it is with humans and the other species with whom we share the planet. No single species is
essential to our well being, yet it is certain that we need biological diversity in order to survive.
Therefore each time we diminish diversity, we take another irreversible step toward the brink of
a dark abyss. In the process, we desecrate the wondrous works of the creator.
[F.] Relations prevent collapse of the marine environment from oil spills
Pinon and Muse 10
(Jorge and Robert, Visiting Research Fellow in the Cuba Research Institute at Florida
International University and Attorney with substantial experience in US-Cuba legal matters,
"Coping with the Next Oil Spill: Why US-Cuba Environmental Cooperation is Critical," The
WFI 13
Pre Camp
20
Cuba Aff
Brookings Institute, Cuba Issue Briefing No. 2, May,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2010/0518_oil_spill_cuba_pinon/0518_oil
_spill_cuba_pinon.pdf)
While the quest for deepwater drilling of oil and gas may slow as a result of the latest
calamity, it is un- likely to stop. it came as little surprise, for example, that Repsol recently announced plans to move
for- ward with exploratory oil drilling in Cuban territo- rial waters later this year.1 As Cuba continues to develop its
deepwater oil and natural gas reserves, the consequence to the United states of a similar
mishap occurring in Cuban waters moves from the theoretical to the actual. The sober- ing
fact that a Cuban spill could foul hundreds of miles of American coastline and do profound
harm to important marine habitats demands cooperative and proactive planning by
Washington and havana to minimize or avoid such a calamity. Also important is the planning
necessary to prevent and, if necessary, respond to incidents arising from this country’s oil
industry that, through the action of currents and wind, threaten Cuban waters and shorelines.
While Washington is working to prevent future di- sasters in U.s. waters like the Deepwater
Horizon, its current policies foreclose the ability to respond effectively to future oil disasters—
whether that disaster is caused by companies at work in Cuban waters, or is the result of companies operating in U.s. waters.
Context in April 2009, the Brookings institution released a comprehensive report on United states—Cuba rela- tions Cuba: a new
Policy of Critical of Critical and Constructive engagement timed to serve as a resource for policymakers in the new Administration.
The report, which reflected consensus among a diverse group of experts on U.s.-Cuba relations, was notable for its menu of
executive Branch actions that could, over time, facilitate the restoration of normal rela- tions between the United states and Cuba
through a series of confidence-building exercises in areas of clear mutual interest. The emphasis was on identify- ing
unobjectionable, practical and realizable areas of cooperation between the two countries. Among the initiatives recommended to
the new obama Administration were: • “Open a dialogue between the United States and Cuba, particularly on issues of mutual
concern, including migration, counter-nar- cotics, environment, health, and security.• Develop agreements and assistance with the
government of Cuba for disaster relief and en- vironmental stewardship.” Shortly after releasing its report, Brookings and the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) co-hosted a new era for U.S.-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal Resources Conservation, a
conference high- lighting the importance and value of environmental cooperation between Cuba and the United states. EDF has
particular expertise in this area because it has been working with Cuban scientists and envi- ronmental officials for over a decade to
protect coral reefs, marine life and coastal areas in their country. The joint Brookings/EDF conference identified areas of potential
bilateral collaboration aimed at protect- ing shared marine and coastal ecosystems in the gulf of Mexico, Caribbean sea and the
Atlantic ocean. The
importance of cooperation on environmental is- sues stressed at the
conference is particularly relevant now in light of events like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
and the basic facts of geography and their rela- tion to threats to contiguous U.s. and Cuban
marine areas. Cuba sits at the intersection of the Atlantic ocean, Caribbean sea and gulf of
Mexico and thus shares marine waters with the United states, areas where oil and gas
deposits are about to be explored. Preserving that country’s marine biodiversity is critically important because it
constitutes the nat- ural heritage of the Cuban people. The health of Cuba’s ocean environment is likewise important to the
economies of coastal communities in the United states where significant numbers of fish species that spawn in Cuban waters are
carried by prevailing currents into U.s. waters and caught by commercial and recreational fishermen. florida and the southeastern
United states are situated in the downstream of those currents, which bring snapper, grouper, tuna, swordfish (as well as manatee
and sea turtles) to U.S. waters, but can serve equally as vec- tors of Cuban spilled oil. The United states geological survey estimates
that Cuba’s Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ), which includes the gulf of Mexico north Cuba fold and Thrust Belt, has over five billion
barrels of oil and 8.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas undiscovered reserves.2 Like the United states, the size of Cuba’s oil and gas
reserves is both economically fortuitous and a measure of the threat it poses to the marine environment in addition to spain’s
Repsol, over the next few years international oil companies such as norway’s statoil-hydro, Brazil’s Petrobras and others will be
conducting exploratory work off Cuba’s north coast. it is only a matter of time before production begins in earnest and the
environmental risks rise exponentially. To
respond effectively to an oil-related marine acci- dent, any
company operating in or near Cuban ter- ritorial waters will require immediate access to the
expertise and equipment of U.s. oil companies and their suppliers. They are best positioned to
provide immediately the technology and know-how needed to halt and limit the damage to
the marine envi- ronment. obviously, the establishment of working relations between the
United states and Cuba to fa- cilitate marine environmental protection is the first step in the
contingency planning and cooperation that will be necessary to an effective response and
early end to an oil spill.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
21
Cuba Aff
[G.] Lifting embargo k2 US regulations on Cuban drilling
Harder, 2011
[Amy, National Journal Daily P.M. UpdateWashington: Atlantic Media, Inc. (Oct 18, 2011), As
Cuba Prepares to Drill, Embargo Complicates Matters for U.S, Accessed online via Proquest]
/Wyo-MB
The half-century-old U.S. embargo on Cuba makes it uniquely difficult for the federal
government to prepare for an oil spill off Cuba's coast that could easily affect U.S. waters,
lawmakers were warned at a Senate hearing on Tuesday.¶ Because of the embargo, U.S.
companies cannot supply Cuba with equipment or have any say in its safety regulations.
Drilling in Cuban waters, set to begin as early as this year, could occur within 70 miles of the
Florida Keys.¶ "We don't know a lot about the Cuban oversight regime," said Michael
Bromwich, who directs the Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement, after the hearing. "The information that we have received suggests it is not
highly developed."¶ The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held the hearing to
discuss plans by Spanish company Repsol to begin drilling off Cuba's coast as soon as this year.¶
The Cold War-era embargo, in place for 49 years, would preclude U.S. companies even from
helping Cuba control a blowout or spill. And if there were an oil spill caused by Cuban drilling,
the U.S. Coast Guard would have to seek approval from the State Department to respond. The
Treasury Department also would have to approve U.S. government involvement in a Cuban oil
spill clean-up effort, since it imposes the sanctions.¶ "Are we able to respond?" Committee
Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., asked Vice Adm. Brian Salerno, deputy commandant for
operations with the U.S. Coast Guard.¶ "We do not have immediate authority to respond to a
foreign source" spill, Salerno responded, noting that Cuba is a "special case" because of the
embargo.¶ During the hearing, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., grilled Salerno and Bromwich about
whether anyone from the administration is in talks to modify or lift the embargo in order to
make working with Cuba on its offshore drilling regime more effective.¶ "I'm not aware of any
efforts," Bromwich responded. Salerno agreed.¶ "So we're at the mercy of the Cuban
government to make sure they do it right?" Manchin asked.¶ "They have oversight power,"
Bromwich said. "We don't."¶ In prepared testimony, Bromwich underscored that Repsol, the
Spanish company preparing to drill off Cuba's northern coast, has since February voluntarily
provided the U.S. government with information about its drilling plans and oil spill response.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
22
Cuba Aff
1AC – Advantage – Hemispheric Relations
[A.] The time is right to lift the Cuban Embargo—reforms beginning in Cuba
now
Tisdall, 2013
[Simon, assistant editor and foreign affairs columnist of the Guardian. He was previously foreign
editor of the Guardian and the Observer and served as White House corespondent and U.S.
editor in Washington D.C., Time for U.S. and Cuba to kiss and make up, 4-8-13,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/opinion-simon-tisdall-cuba] /Wyo-MB
These blinkered conservatives need to get over themselves. The 60-year stand-off between the
U.S. and Cuba is absurd. It is counterproductive and harmful to both countries. It is time to
end this Cold War anachronism, kiss and make up.¶ Anger over Beyoncé's supposed breach of
the U.S. embargo rules restricting American citizens' travel to Cuba is symbolic of a deeper fear
among right-wingers. Two key factors have changed since the days -- not so long ago -- when
Washington seemed to be regularly threatening the Castro government with Iraq-style
overthrow.¶ One is that George W. Bush has been replaced by a Democrat. As Barack Obama
enters his second and final term, immune to electoral imperatives, conservatives worry he may
use his freedom of action to effect an historic rapprochement with Cuba. American liberals
certainly believe he should do so.¶ The second change is in Cuba itself, where the government,
now led by Fidel Castro's brother, Raoul, has embarked on a cautious program of reform. The
government -- dubbed the world's longest-running dictatorship by the American right -- has
even set a date for its own dissolution.¶ Doing what "dictators" rarely do, Raoul Castro
announced in February that in 2018, he would hand over power and that any successor would
be subject to term limits. The Castro brothers have reportedly chosen a career communist, first
vice president Miguel Diaz-Canel, to succeed them. But in reality, once their grip on power is
relaxed, anything may happen.¶ The two Florida Republicans who have been making a fuss
about the Beyonce visit are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart. They are veterans, and
beneficiaries, of the anti-Castro campaign that has long been waged from Little Havana, in
Miami, the home to the state's large Cuban exile population. The Cuban vote, as it is known, has
traditionally gone to Republicans.¶ But Obama's approach is the antithesis of the politics of hate
and division. He broke that mold last year, making big gains among the Cuban American
electorate. This result suggested the polarized ethnically-based politics of the past may be
breaking down, said Julia Sweig of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations in a recent article in The
National Interest.¶ "Having won nearly half of the Cuban American vote in Florida in 2012, a gain
of 15 percentage points over 2008, Obama can move quickly on Cuba. If he were to do so, he
would find a cautious but willing partner in Raúl Castro, who needs rapprochement with
Washington to advance his own reform agenda," Sweig said.¶ Little wonder Republicans like RosLehtinen are worried. If things go on like this, they could lose a large piece of their political
raison d'etre.¶ There are other reasons for believing the time is right for Obama to end the
Cuba stalemate. The recent death of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's influential president, has
robbed Havana of a strong supporter, both political and financial.¶ Chavez was not interested
in a rapprochement with the U.S., either by Cuba or Venezuela. His revolutionary beliefs did
not allow for an accommodation with the American "imperialists." His successors may not
take so militant a line, especially given that Venezuela continues to trade heavily with the
U.S., a privilege not allowed Cuba.¶ The so-called "pink tide" that has brought several left-wing
leaders to power in Latin America in the past decade is not exactly on the ebb, but the
WFI 13
Pre Camp
23
Cuba Aff
hostility countries such as Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia felt towards the Bush administration has
abated. In fact, according to Sweig's article, U.S. business with Latin America as a whole is
booming, up 20% in 2011. The U.S. imports more crude oil from Venezuela and Mexico than
from the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. The U.S. does three times more business with
Latin America than with China.¶ The stand-off over Cuba is an obstacle to advancing U.S.
interests and business in Latin American countries, and vice versa. The continuation of the
embargo has left the U.S. almost totally isolated at the United Nations, and at sharp odds with
its major allies, including Britain and the EU.¶ But more importantly, the continued ostracism
of Cuba's people -- for they, not the Havana government, are the biggest losers -- is unfair,
unkind and unnecessary. If the U.S. wants full democracy in Cuba, then it should open up fully
to ordinary Cubans. Tear down the artificial walls that separate the people of the two
countries and, as Mao Zedong once said, let a hundred flowers bloom.
[B.] Cuba is a low-hanging fruit – it’s a prerequisite to hemispheric relations
Doherty 8 (Patrick, "An Obama Policy for Cuba," McClathy Newspapers, December
12,cuba.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/obama_policy_cuba_9301)
With his national security team in place, President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy principals will be
immediately struck by how many complex and expensive challenges they will face. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine
and Russia, will all require enormous energy, all the tools in our foreign policy toolbox, and will all take years to resolve, if they can
be resolved. None
of these crises will allow President Obama to signal swiftly to the world the
kind of changes he proposes in American foreign policy. In contrast, U.S.-Cuba policy is lowhanging fruit:
though of marginal importance domestically, it could be changed immediately at little cost. At present,
that policy is a major black spot on America's international reputation . For the rest of the
world, our failed, obsolete and 50-year old policy toward Cuba goes against everything that
Obama campaigned for, and the recent 185-3 U.N. vote to condemn the centerpiece of that
policy , the embargo – the 16th such vote in as many years – makes that clear. The entire world believes our
policy is wrong . And the world is right. The fact is that since Cuba stopped exporting revolution and started exporting doctors
and nurses, it ceased being a national security concern for the United States. And yet we restrict travel to the island unconstitutionally - and constrain Cuban-Americans in the amount of money they can send to their families on the island. Moreover,
the economic embargo hurts the Cuban people more than the Cuban leadership, and our Helms-Burton legislation imposes
Washington's will on foreign businesses who wish to trade with Cuba, creating ill will in
business communities from Canada to Brazil. Our Cuba policy is also an obstacle to striking a
new relationship with the nations of Latin America. Any 21st-century policy toward Latin
America will have to shift from the Cold War-era emphasis on right-wing governments and top-down economic
adjustment to creating a hemispheric partnership to address many critical issues: the revival of
militant leftism, the twin challenges of sustainability and inclusive economic growth, and the
rising hemispheric influence of Russia and China. But until Washington ends the extraordinary
sanctions that comprise the Cuba embargo, Latin America will remain at arms-length, and the
problems in our backyard - Hugo Chavez, drugs, immigration, energy insecurity - will simply
fester.
[C.] Lifting embargo solves US image and leadership in Latin America
Fesler, 2009
[Lily, Research Associate The council on hemispheric relations, Cuban Oil: Havana's Potential
Geo-Political Bombshell, Washington Report on the Hemisphere29. 11. (Jun 18, 2009), Accessed
online via Proquest] Wyo-MB
WFI 13
Pre Camp
24
Cuba Aff
In 1962, the proclamation initiating the embargo stated its purpose was to "promote national
and hemispheric security by isolating the present Government of Cuba and thereby reducing the
threat posed by its alignment with the Communist powers." With the end of the Cold War, the
need to protect the U.S. from communism disappeared along with the rationale for the Cuban
embargo. The U.S. enthusiastically trades with communist nations like China and Vietnam, so
punishing Cuba for its form of government is clearly no longer a valid justification.¶ It also has
been argued that the embargo has helped the Castros stay in power, rather than inhibiting
them. The Castros have turned the "blockade" into the scapegoat for all of Cuba's economic
woes. This theory may not be entirely fair, especially as the U.S. is cur- ently Cuba's larg- est
food exporter due to a loophole in the embargo. In 2000, Presi- dent Bill Clinton signed a waiver
allowing food and agricultural prod- ucts to be sold to Cuba on humani- tarian grounds, although
much of what is sent is far from being hu- manitarian and is loaded with inhib- iting red tape.
The waiver includes goods like beer, soda, drink mixes, beauty products and kitchen cabinets, as
well as staples like corn, poultry and wheat. The U.S. now earns upwards of $700 million
annually from the Cuba trade. Some critics have argued that the best way to expose the
inadequacies of Castro rule would be to lift the embargo, and thus respond to Havana's claim
that the U.S. is the cause of much of Cuban privation.¶ Further Steps¶ President Obama may
have hoped that his recent overtures towards Cuba would temporarily satisfy his critics, but
instead they have merely amplified calls for Washington to take more forthright steps. Ending
restrictions on Cuban-American travel was done in a discriminatory fashion. In a democratic
country, every American, irrespective of their background, should be able to travel wherever
their neighbors travel; nationality or family relationships should not afford certain Americans
special privileges, or the lack of them. The lifting of restrictions on remittances was a step in the
right direction, but it has yet to significantly affect Cuban finances. In fact, remittances to Cuba
have not increased since they were lifted two months ago, according to the president of Cimex.¶
Constructive Engagement¶ A rising tide of US public opinion is calling on Washington to lift the
outdated and malfunctioning embargo on Cuba, a move that would not only benefit the
beleaguered Cuban population and be of some value to the oil-needy United States, but also
improve the tarnished image of the U.S. in Latin America. Right now, the House of
Representatives is considering the "United States- Cub a Trade Normalization Act of 2009",
which recognizes that "Cuba is no longer a threat," the embargo is "not fulfilling its purpose
for which it was established," and that "trade and commerce" are the best routes to
democracy and human rights. This bill would lift the trade embargo and allow all Americans to
travel to Cuba, both much needed changes. Representative William Delahunt, who is sponsoring
the bill, has said he doesn't expect a vote until November. Nevertheless, its prospects for
passing are high.¶ Recently, Hillary Clinton stated, "We have to recognize that our country is not
perfect either, that some of the difficulties that we had historically in forging strong and
lasting relationships in our hemisphere are a result of us perhaps not listening, perhaps not
paying enough attention." The U.S. now has the chance to reject its historically arrogant
operating style in the region, and disprove Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's recent claim
that, when it comes to U.S. policy, "the president has changed, but not Latin American policy."
Congress should prioritize pushing the Trade Normalization Act through the House and the
Senate to pave the way for some advancements in the U.S. and Cuban economies, and to
improve Washington's still lagging image in Latin America.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
25
Cuba Aff
[D.] The plan solves leadership in Latin America, the Cuban embargo is the key
stumbling block to boosting relations
White, 2013
[Robert, International Herald Tribune, A chance to remake U.S.-Cuba relations, 3-9-13, Lexis]
/Wyo-MB
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 interAmerican 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 Americans 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 U.S. 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 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, Chávez said that ''the
most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire.''¶ 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 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 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
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
WFI 13
Pre Camp
26
Cuba Aff
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.
[E.] Hemispheric relations is key to solving organized crime
Brookings 8 (The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations:
A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx)
Crime and insecurity are growing scourges in the Western Hemisphere. The LAC region has only 9 percent of the world’s population,
yet it has 27 percent of global homicides—about 140,000 a year. Crime, especially organized crime, poses a serious threat to public
security and undermines public institutions and the legitimate business sector. Organized
crime in the hemisphere
today encompasses a variety of criminal enterprises, including narcotics trafficking, money
laundering, alien smuggling, human trafficking, kidnapping, and arms and counterfeit goods
smuggling. The United States stands at the crossroads of many of these illicit flows. Violent youth
gangs, such as the Mara Salvatrucha, have a presence in the United States. Some 2,000 guns cross the United States–Mexico border
from north to south every day, helping to fuel violence among drug cartels and with the army and police. About 17,500 persons are
smuggled into the United States annually as trafficking victims, and another 500,000 come as illegal immigrants. The United States
remains both a leading consuming country across the full range of illicit narcotics and a country with major domestic production of
methamphetamines, cannabis, and other synthetic narcotics. The
nations of the Western Hemisphere have
adopted a variety of international instruments to tackle organized crime. Virtually every country in the
Americas has ratified the 2000 UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Most of the hemisphere’s
countries have also signed and ratified international agreements that deal with the trafficking
of persons, the smuggling of migrants, illicit firearms trafficking, and the illicit drug trade. Yet
a significant reduction in crime in the hemisphere remains elusive. The narcotics trade remains
at the core of organized crime in the hemisphere. This is by far the most lucrative of illegal
trades, generating hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Its immense cash flow, vast
employment opportunities, and sophisticated networks feed other kinds of criminal activity
and allow drug traffickers to adapt with extraordinary speed to governments’
counternarcotics efforts. The drug trade is also singularly adept at corrupting judicial, political, and law enforcement
institutions. In Mexico, open war between the cartels and all levels of government has killed 4,000 people so far in 2008 alone—
about as many casualties as the United States has sustained in almost six years of war in Iraq. This violence already threatens to spill
into the United States and to destabilize Mexico’s political institutions. Because it lies at the core of regional criminal activity, this
section focuses on the illegal drug trade. A
hemisphere-wide counternarcotics strategy encompassing
consuming, producing, and transshipment countries is required to combat not only the illegal
drug trade but also other forms of crime.
[F.] We’re at the tipping point – stopping Latin American drug trade is key to
cutting off Global supply chains
Baker 8 (Roger, "The Big Business of Organized Crime in Mexico," Stratfor, February
13,http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/big_business_organized_crime_mexico)
This is a fundamental aspect of the phenomenon we are seeing now. It is a classic case of organized crime. The
Mexican drug
cartels are, for the most part, organized crime groups. What distinguishes Mexican organized crime groups and others
from revolutionaries, terrorists and hybrid organizations such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) is the
underlying principle of making money. In
the global system, there is an economy of crime. It currently is built
WFI 13
Pre Camp
27
Cuba Aff
around drugs, but
any item that is illegal in one place and legal in other and has an artificially
inflated price quickly can become the center of the system. Human trafficking, smuggling and counterfeiting
are cases in point, as was alcohol during prohibition. Products move from where they are legal (or at least not well-controlled) to
where they are in demand but illegal. The money, of course, moves in the opposite direction. That money eventually ends up in the
normal banking system. Organized crime wants to make money and it might want to manipulate the system, but it does not seek to
overthrow the system or transform society. Insurgencies and revolutions seek to transform. In the end, organized crime is about
making money. Endemic organized crime leads to corruption and collusion, and in the long term often burns itself out as the money
earned through its activities eventually moves into the legal economic system. When organized crime groups become rich enough,
they move their money into legitimate businesses in order to launder it or a least use it, eventually turning it into established money
that has entered the realm of business. This can get more complicated when organized crime and insurgents/guerrillas overlap, as is
the case with FARC. The problems we are seeing in Mexico are similar to those we have seen in past cases, in which criminal
elements become factionalized. In Mexico, these factions are fighting over control of drug routes and domain. The battles that are
taking place are largely the result of fighting among the organized crime groups, rather than cartels fighting the Mexican
government. In some ways, the Mexican military and security forces are a third party in this — not the focus. Ultimately, the cartels
— not the government — control the level of violence and security in the country. As
new groups emerge and evolve,
they frequently can be quite violent and in some sense anarchic. When a new group of drug dealers moves
into a neighborhood, it might be flamboyant and excessively violent. It is the same on a much larger scale with
these organized crime cartels. However, although cartel infighting is tolerated to some extent, the government is forced
to react when the level of violence starts to get out of hand. This is what we are seeing in Mexico. However, given that
organized crime tends to become more conservative as it grows and becomes more
established, the situation in Mexico could be reaching a tipping point.
For example, during the summer
of 2007, the Gulf and Sinaloa cartels declared a temporary truce as their rivalry began to impact their business operations. As
the
competition among the cartels settles, they could begin to draw back their forces and deal
with those members who are excessively violent or out of control. This is simply a way of
assuring their operations. The American Mafia followed a similar pattern, evolving into an organism with strong discipline
and control. There is a question now as to whether the Mexican cartels are following the American model or imitating the
Colombian model, which is a hybrid of organized crime and an insurgency. In fact, they might be following both. Mexico, in some
sense, is two countries. The North has a much higher standard of living than the rest of the country, especially the area south of
Mexico City. In the North, we could ultimately see a move in the direction of the American Mafia, whereas in the South — the home
of the domestic guerrilla groups Zapatista National Liberation Army and Popular Revolutionary Army — it could shift more toward
the Colombian model. While the situation is evolving, the main battle in Mexico continues to be waged among various cartel
factions, rather than among the cartels and the Mexican government or security forces. The goal of organized crime, and the goal of
many of these cartels, is to get rich within the system, with minor variations on how that is achieved. A revolutionary group, on the
other hand, wants to overthrow and change the system. The cartels obviously are working outside the legal framework, but they are
not putting forward an alternative — nor do they seem to want to. Rather, they can achieve their goals simply through payoffs and
other forms of corruption. The most likely outcome is not a merger between the cartels and the guerrilla groups, or even a shift in
the cartels’ priorities to include government overthrow. However, as the government turns up the pressure, the concern is that the
cartels will adopt insurgent-style tactics.
Organized crime is not street crime; it is systemic geopolitical
crime. It is a significant social force, bringing huge amounts of capital into a system. This flow
of money can reshape the society. But this criminal supply chain runs parallel to, and in many
cases intersects, the legitimate global supply chain. Whether through smuggling and money
laundering or increased investment capital and higher consumption rates, the underground
and aboveground economies intersect. U.S. and Mexican counternarcotics operations have
an instant impact on the supply chain.
Such operations shift traffic patterns across the border, affect the level of
stability in the border areas — where there is a significant amount of manufacturing and trade — and impact sensitive social and
political issues between the two countries, particularly immigration. In this light, then, violence is only one small part of the total
impact that cartel activities and government counternarcotics efforts are having on the border.
[G.] Organized crime makes nuclear and CBW warfare inevitable – outweighs
the risk of state-state warfare
CSIS 9 (CEnter for Strategic and International Studies, "Revolution 6 - Conflict," Global Strategy
Institute," gsi.csis.org/index.php?Itemid=59&id=30&option=com_content&task=view)
WFI 13
Pre Camp
28
Cuba Aff
The shift from interstate to intrastate war and the increasing capacity of non-state actors to commit acts of megaviolence
reflect how patterns of conflict have changed since the end of the Cold War. Today warfare is
increasingly described as “asymmetric.” Traditional military powers, like the United States, are confronted
by increasingly atypical adversaries— non-state ideologues, transnational criminal syndicates, and rogue states—
that employ unconventional tactics in wars ambiguous in both place and time. Today, conflict
is more likely to occur between warring factions on residential streets than between armies
on battlefields. As before, many belligerents still fight for power and/or wealth, but an increasing number are fighting purely
for ideology. Acts of terrorism have become the major vehicle for their malcontent, especially for
well-organized and well-funded Islamic groups like al-Qaeda. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and similar
incidences in recent decades have shown that even small groups of terrorists can carry out sophisticated attacks that result in an
incredible loss of life. The
proliferation of nuclear and biological technologies only ups the ante for
future incidences. [19] Terrorism and Transnational Crime Over the past few decades the size and scope of terrorists’
abilities have become truly alarming. Terrorist organizations have evolved from scrappy bands of
dissidents into well-organized groups with vast human and capital resources. This situation is forcing
governments around the world to develop strategies to both neutralize these groups where they operate and maintain security at
home. The United States has met some success in combating terrorist organizations, killing high-level officials and isolating certain
sub-groups, but the War on Terror has had the unintended consequence of forming “micro-actors,” individuals driven by foreign
military operations to militant extremism. These individuals, or groups of individuals, operate in poorly organized cells and as such
use internet technologies to spread their message and share plans of attack. Perhaps paradoxically, this disorganization and
decentralization makes these groups a greater threat to the military as it is harder to detect and track them. [1] Terrorism
has
also had the effect of heightening tensions between sovereign nations. After the Mumbai terrorist
attacks of 2008, India and Pakistan neared war after India accused Pakistan of harboring terrorists
and Pakistan refused to turn over individuals for prosecution. To finance their illegal activity,
terrorist organizations are becoming involved in transnational crime, especially drug
trafficking . Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy, has stated, “The huge revenues
from the heroin trade fill the coffers of the terrorists and thwart any attempt to stabilize the
region.” [2] Over the last two decades, we have witnessed a surge in transnational crime, in large part
because of the dissolution of Cold War alliances that helped keep criminal syndicates in check.
Organized crime activity is not limited to the smuggling of illicit drugs, but includes the trafficking of arms, drugs, and human beings.
Weapons of Mass Destruction According to President Obama, “In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone
down, but the
risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.” [3] International mechanisms established in
recent decades have by and large kept the nuclear ambitions of superpowers at bay. However,
the fall of the Soviet Union and the increasing prevalence and power of criminal networks
have made it more likely that a single actor could get his or her hands on a Weapon of Mass
Destruction (WMD). The term WMD is used to describe any weapons technology (radiological,
chemical, biological, or nuclear) that is capable of killing a large number of people. [4] By and large it is believed that
WMD pose the greatest threat in the possession of belligerent states like Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. However, experts are
warning that a more urgent threat would come from WMD in the hands of non-state actors.
Nuclear material and technical knowledge are frequently exchanged on the black market,
especially in post-Soviet countries, where security personnel charged with guarding nuclear facilities are
easily bribed into selling nuclear plans and materials. [5] With the help of the United States, Russia and its
neighbors have made strides in securing these sites and improving oversight of the nuclear industry, but there is no telling how
much material has been traded over the years. [6] The
WMD threat does not only come from groups
operating in the developing world, however, as recent biochemical attacks attest. The prime
suspect in the anthrax attacks of 2001 was a government scientist, and the sarin gas attack on
the Tokyo subway was committed by a religious organization that enjoyed official government
recognition. The ease with which these materials have become available, especially through
online resources, is forcing governments to restrict their use. International governing bodies will need to
find an acceptable paradigm that allows for the benign applications of these technologies, as in power generation, while deterring
the nefarious ones.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
29
Cuba Aff
[H.] Organized crime in Latin America causes regional instability
Bagley 1 (Bruce, “GLOBALIZATION AND TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME: THE RUSSIAN
MAFIA IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN,” School of International Studies at the
University of Miami Coral Gables, November 15, http://www.as.miami.edu/internationalstudies/pdf/Bagley%20GLOBALIZATION%202.pdf)
The dangers and risks to Lain American governments and societies that emanate from expanding Russian mafiya activities within and
outside their national borders are usually more indirect than direct, although nonetheless real because of their obliqueness. In
Colombia, for example, Russian mafia
arms-for-cocaine smuggling operations have unquestionably
upgraded the FARC guerrillas’ arsenal and enhanced their firepower vis a vis the Colombian
police and armed forces, thereby contributing to the intensification of the country’s internal
conflicts. The fact that the Russian mafia appears equally willing to sell arms to Colombia’s rightwing paramilitaries may
underscore their lack of ideological involvement in Colombia’s decades-old civil strife, but it in no way mitigates the
profoundly negative consequences that their illicit activities hold for Colombian political
stability and state security. The Russians’ international money laundering services are provided in a similarly non-partisan
fashion -- for a price, they will launder drug trafficker, guerrilla or paramilitary money on an equal opportunity basis. In doing so,
of course, they facilitate the clandestine movement of the narco-dollars that help underwrite
the on-going violence in Colombia.[83] Even for those Latin American countries not engulfed in civil wars such as the
one raging in Colombia, Russian illegal arms trafficking and arms-for-drugs deals in alliance with local
criminal gangs significantly increase the firepower available to violent elements of society and
make them more difficult and dangerous for law enforcement to control. Brazil’s favelas, for
instance, have become virtual war zones, at least in part as a result of Russian drug and arms trafficking links with local
criminal organizations in that country. Likewise, the Central American “maras” have become progressively
better armed and threatening to social stability and state security throughout the Isthmus as a
result of their linkages with Russian (along with Mexican, Colombian and North American) transnational
organized crime groups. The Russian mafia is not, by any means, the only source of weapons in the region. The United
States itself is a major purveyor of small arms throughout Latin America and the Caribbean and elsewhere in the world.[84] But
given the political chaos and relative availability of black-market arms in Russia and most other former Soviet Bloc countries,
Russian crime groups enjoy significant comparative advantages in this clandestine market and,
thus, have emerged as major players in the international illicit arms trade.[85] The
consequences for Latin America and the Caribbean are visible on a daily basis in the surging
rates of gang warfare and violent crime registered in every major urban area in the region.
Independent of the arms black-market, the Russian mafia’s criminal strategies and tactics for penetration
into the region are inherently, even if indirectly, threatening to institutional stability and state
security. Russian crime groups do not normally seek to displace the local criminal organizations ensconced in each Latin American
or Caribbean country, but rather to cooperate with them in order to facilitate their own illegal operations and to elude detection
and arrest. In doing so,
they clearly strengthen the local crime groups with which they affiliate by
providing them with expanded markets in Europe and Russia for contraband such as cocaine,
heroin and methamphetamines, by sharing new smuggling routes into (and networks of protection
and distribution in) these lucrative markets, and by helping to launder the profits derived from
their illicit enterprises through Russian channels at home and abroad. The Russian mafia’s “marriage of
convenience” with the Arrellano Felix cartel based in Tijuana, Mexico, illustrates the dangerous potential of such alliances. The May
3, 2001, 12 ton cocaine seizure on the Russian and Ukrainian-crewed Svesda Maru constituted the largest cocaine bust in U.S.
maritime history. The money and arms obtained by the Arrellano Felix mob through their linkages with Russian crime groups
unquestionably make the Tijuana cartel wealthier, more able to purchase Mexican police and political “protection” through bribery,
and better armed and equipped to ward off rival gangs or to resist Mexican and U.S. law enforcement efforts mounted against them.
The Russian’s preferred tactics of bribery, blackmail and intimidation tend to exercise
corrosive pressures on key private and public sector institutions, thereby undermining
individual states’ abilities to preserve the stable economic and social environment, effective
law enforcement capacity and “level playing field” required to promote legal business activity
and attract foreign investment essential to long-term economic growth. Traditional and longstanding
WFI 13
Pre Camp
30
Cuba Aff
patterns of patrimonial rule, personalism, clientelism, and bureaucratic corruption throughout Latin America have encouraged and
facilitated Russian crime groups’ resorts to these favored tactics (as they have for domestic criminal organizations as well). Time
and again, many (although certainly not all) police and customs officials, military officers,
judges, politicians, and businessmen have proven susceptible to such enticements in large and
small countries alike throughout the region.[86] The Russian mafia’s expanding presence in Latin America and
the Caribbean does not currently constitute a direct security threat to either the individual states of the region or to the United
States. It does, however, contribute
indirectly to the entire region’s growing economic, social and
political turmoil and insecurity and thus poses a major challenge to economic growth,
effective democratic governance and long-run regime stability throughout the hemisphere.
[H.] That causes global war
Rochlin 94 (James,. Professor of Political Science at Okanagan University College. “Discovering
the Americas: the evolution of Canadian foreign policy towards Latin America,” p. 130-131)
While there were economic motivations for Canadian policy in Central America, security considerations were perhaps more
important. Canada possessed an interest in promoting stability in the face of a potential decline of U.S. hegemony in the Americas.
Perceptions of declining U.S. influence in the region – which had some credibility in 1979-1984 due to the wildly inequitable divisions
of wealth in some U.S. client states in Latin America, in addition to political repression, under-development, mounting external debt,
anti-American sentiment produced by decades of subjugation to U.S. strategic and economic interests, and so on – were linked to
the prospect of explosive events occurring in the hemisphere. Hence, the
Central American imbroglio was viewed
as a fuse which could ignite a cataclysmic process throughout the region. Analysts at the time
worried that in a worst-case scenario, instability created by a regional war, beginning in
Central America and spreading elsewhere in Latin America, might preoccupy Washington to
the extent that the United States would be unable to perform adequately its important
hegemonic role in the international arena – a concern expressed by the director of research
for Canada’s Standing Committee Report on Central America. It was feared that such a
predicament could generate increased global instability and perhaps even a hegemonic war.
This is one of the motivations which led Canada to become involved in efforts at regional conflict resolution, such as Contadora, as
will be discussed in the next chapter.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
31
Cuba Aff
Advantage – Democracy Promotion
WFI 13
Pre Camp
32
Cuba Aff
Democracy Promotion – Inherency – Transition Now
Cuban government reforms happening now—removal of the embargo key to
sustain Cuban governmental and economic transition
BBC Worldwide, 2011
[BBC Monitoring Latin America – Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring, November 16,
2011 Wednesday, Think tank urges United States to do more for Cuba, Lexis] Wyo-MB
Washington, 15 November: The Washington-based think tank, Centre for Democracy in the
Americas, is urging the United States to do more to encourage market reforms and restructuring
now underway in Cuba.¶ "After fifty years of sanctions, and a generation after the demise of the
Cold War, it is incumbent upon US policy makers to understand the changes taking place in
Cuba today and respond accordingly," it said in a new report, adding that "the success or failure
of the reform process will largely be determined in Havana, not Washington".¶ Although Cuba's
economy is still largely state-controlled, under President Raul Castro it has taken steps to
reduce the size of government by allowing Cuban citizens to operate their own small
businesses and form cooperatives. Castro has also ended some state subsidies and began
phasing out others, such as the ration card. Other market-oriented reforms, such as allowing
Cubans to buy and sell homes and cars, were enacted this fall.¶ But the report notes advocates
for reform of US policy towards Cuba, the big change announced by Castro - laying off more
than one million workers, about a fifth of the state payroll - was "halted before it ever really got
underway".¶ The report says that Cuba's problems "stem from the limited ways in which its
economy produces wealth, its heavy reliance on imports to feed its population, growing
domestic economic inequality, and the lack of opportunities for citizens to productively use
knowledge acquired through advanced education". This year, the Cuba government is
expecting economic growth of 2.9 per cent, an improvement over 2010 when the economy
grew by 2.1 per cent. The study notes that many in the United States question the sincerity of
Cuba's reform efforts and whether they are permanent.¶ Cuba experimented with economic
liberalization in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet bloc sent its economy into a
downward spiral. It allowed self-employment in 160 occupations, and by 1996 more than
200,000 Cubans had licenses to work for themselves. But as Cuba emerged from the post-Soviet
crisis in the late 1990s, it began to roll back the reforms .¶ "Despite doubts on both sides of the
Florida Straits, the evidence leads us to conclude that Cuba's reform process is here to stay,"
the report noted, recommending that US policymakers acknowledge that Cuba's reforms are
real. For more than 50 years, the centrepiece of US policy on Cuba has been the embargo
against the Spanish-speaking Caribbean island in an effort to choke off the government
economically. "In the final analysis, ending the embargo and normalizing relations with Cuba
ought to be a foreign policy priority of the United States," says the report. To lift the embargo
would take an act of Congress.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
33
Cuba Aff
Democracy Promotion – Solvency – New Strategy Key
US Policy to Cuba fails to promote human rights and democracy, removing
embargo is key to a new strategy
Amash, 2012
[Brandon, Contributing writer of Prospect Journal of International Affairs at UCSD, EVALUATING
THE CUBAN EMBARGO, 7-22-12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cubanembargo/] /Wyo-MB
Cuba has a long record of violating the fundamental human rights of freedom of opinion,
thought, expression, and the right to dissent; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly
protects these rights in Articles 19 and 21. Article 19 states that “everyone has the right to
freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.” Article 21 similarly states that “everyone has the right to take part in the
government of his country […]” (UDHR). The purpose of this proposal is to provide the United
States with an alternative foreign policy approach toward Cuba that will improve human rights
conditions and foster democracy in the country. Namely, I argue that the embargo policy
should be abandoned and replaced with a policy based on modeling appropriate behavior,
providing support and resources to developing democratic systems and encouraging
participation in multilateral institutions. In the following pages, I will describe the historical
context of the situation, critique the embargo policy and advocate for the normalization of
relations with Cuba as a stronger approach to improving human rights and espousing
democracy.¶ It is essential to carefully consider this proposal as a viable policy alternative for
promoting democracy and protecting human rights in Cuba because the current embargo
policy has proven to be ineffective in advancing these goals. Developing more effective
approaches to similar situations of democratization and promotion of ideals has been a
foreign policy goal of the United States since before the Cold War. However, despite the vast
shifts in the international climate following the end of the Cold War, U.S. policy towards Cuba
has not adapted. As such, this proposal highlights the need for a fresh policy toward our
neighbor and bitter rival.
Squo embargo tanks US-Cuban relations, and the embargo fails to promote
democracy and human rights
Amash, 2012
[Brandon, Contributing writer of Prospect Journal of International Affairs at UCSD, EVALUATING
THE CUBAN EMBARGO, 7-22-12, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cubanembargo/] /Wyo-MB
The United States and Cuba have been on unstable terms since the colonization of both
countries by the British and Spanish Empires, respectively. Following Cuba’s independence
from Spain and the ensuing Spanish-American War, Cuban-American relations began to
deteriorate: Cubans resented American intervention in their independence, afraid of leaving
one empire only to be conquered by another. However, the human rights violations in question
did not become a problem until after the Cuban Revolution in the 1950s, following the rise of
Fidel Castro’s communist regime. After the revolution, Cuban laws imposed limits on the
freedoms of expression and association, effectively undermining the basic human rights of
freedom of opinion and dissent. According to Clark, De Fana and Sanchez, “given the totalitarian
WFI 13
Pre Camp
34
Cuba Aff
nature of the country, in which all communications media are in the hands of the omnipotent
State-Party, it is physically impossible to express any dissenting political opinion […]” (Clark 65).
Threatened by these blatantly antidemocratic policies, America had to do something.¶ The
United States placed trade embargoes, economic sanctions, and travel bans on Cuba in an
attempt to combat the communist regime and human rights violations (Carter 334). Today,
diplomatic relations with Cuba remain extremely strained, although America’s embargo policy
has tightened and relaxed in concert with its domestic political climate. Most recently,
President Obama has reversed “tighter restrictions on Cuban American family travel and
remittances,” as well as announcing “that U.S. telecommunications companies may seek
licenses to do business in Cuba” (Carter 336). However, despite the ever-evolving policy and
the fluid international climate, little progress has been made in improving the human rights
situation in Cuba, let alone the overall promotion of democratic ideals. The embargo policy is
based on the idea “that economic denial will bring about continued economic failure in Cuba,
thereby creating popular dissatisfaction with the government while simultaneously
weakening the government’s ability to repress this popular dissent, leading to the
destabilization of the regime and, ultimately, its collapse” (Seaman 39). In the following
section, I will explain how these objectives have not been realized.
Ending the embargo is the only way to mobilize the public in Cuba to push for
democratic reform
Perez, 2010
[Louis, e J. Carlyle Sitterson professor of history and the director of the Institute for the Study of
the Americas at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Want change in Cuba? End U.S.
embargo, 9-21-10,
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/20/perez.cuba.embargo/index.html] /Wyo-MB
The Obama administration, he said, wanted "to promote respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms ... in ways that will empower the Cuban people and advance our national
interests."¶ Fine words. But if the administration really wanted to do something in the national
interest, it would end the 50-year-old policy of political and economic isolation of Cuba.¶ The
Cuban embargo can no longer even pretend to be plausible.On the contrary, it has contributed
to the very conditions that stifle democracy and human rights there. For 50 years, its brunt
has fallen mainly on the Cuban people.¶ This is not by accident. On the contrary, the embargo
was designed to impose suffering and hunger on Cubans in the hope that they would rise up
and overturn their government.¶ "The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support,"
the Department of State insisted as early as April 1960, "is through disenchantment and
disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship."¶ The United States tightened
the screws in the post-Soviet years with the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act -- measures
designed, Sen. Robert Torricelli said, "to wreak havoc on that island."¶ The post-Soviet years
were indeed calamitous. Throughout the 1990s, Cubans faced growing scarcities, deteriorating
services and increased rationing. Meeting the needs of ordinary life took extraordinary effort.¶
And therein lies the problem that still bedevils U.S. policy today. Far from inspiring the Cuban
people to revolution, the embargo keeps them down and distracted.¶ Dire need and urgent
want are hardly optimum circumstances for a people to contemplate the benefits of
democracy. A people preoccupied with survival have little interest or inclination to bestir
themselves in behalf of anything else.¶ In Cuba, routine household errands and chores
consume overwhelming amounts of time and energy, day after day: hours in lines at the local
grocery store or waiting for public transportation.¶ Cubans in vast numbers choose to emigrate.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
35
Cuba Aff
Others burrow deeper into the black market, struggling to make do and carry on. Many commit
suicide. (Cuba has one of the highest suicide rates in the world; in 2000, the latest year for which
we have statistics, it was 16.4 per 100,000 people.)¶ A June 2008 survey in The New York Times
reported that less than 10 percent of Cubans identified the lack of political freedom as the
island's main problem. As one Cuban colleague recently suggested to me: "First necessities, later
democracy."¶ The United States should consider a change of policy, one that would offer
Cubans relief from the all-consuming ordeal of daily life. Improved material circumstances
would allow Cubans to turn their attention to other aspirations.¶ Ending the embargo would
also imply respect for the Cuban people, an acknowledgment that they have the vision and
vitality to enact needed reforms, and that transition in Cuba, whatever form it may take, is
wholly a Cuban affair.¶ A good-faith effort to engage Cuba, moreover, would counter the
common perception there that the United States is a threat to its sovereignty. It would deny
Cuban leaders the chance to use U.S. policy as pretext to limit public debate and stifle dissent
-- all to the good of democracy and human rights.¶ And it would serve the national interest.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
36
Cuba Aff
Democracy Promotion – AT: Emboldens Hardliners
Removing the sanctions prevents emboldening hardliners in Cuba and opens up
the possibility of effective democratic transitions
Bandow, 2012
[Douglas, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US
president Ronald Reagan, Time to End the Cuba Embargo, 12-11-12,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo] /Wyo-MB
It is far past time to end the embargo.¶ During the Cold War, Cuba offered a potential advanced
military outpost for the Soviet Union. Indeed, that role led to the Cuban missile crisis. With the
failure of the U.S.-supported Bay of Pigs invasion, economic pressure appeared to be
Washington’s best strategy for ousting the Castro dictatorship.¶ However, the end of the Cold
War left Cuba strategically irrelevant. It is a poor country with little ability to harm the United
States. The Castro regime might still encourage unrest, but its survival has no measurable
impact on any important U.S. interest.¶ The regime remains a humanitarian travesty, of course.
Nor are Cubans the only victims: three years ago the regime jailed a State Department
contractor for distributing satellite telephone equipment in Cuba. But Havana is not the only
regime to violate human rights. Moreover, experience has long demonstrated that it is virtually
impossible for outsiders to force democracy. Washington often has used sanctions and the
Office of Foreign Assets Control currently is enforcing around 20 such programs, mostly to little
effect.¶ The policy in Cuba obviously has failed. The regime remains in power. Indeed, it has
consistently used the embargo to justify its own mismanagement, blaming poverty on
America. Observed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “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.” Similarly, Cuban exile Carlos Saladrigas of the Cuba Study Group argued
that keeping the “embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden
the hardliners.Ӧ Cuban human rights activists also generally oppose sanctions. A decade ago I
(legally) visited Havana, where I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who suffered in communist
prisons for eight years. He told me that the “sanctions policy gives the government a good alibi
to justify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba.Ӧ Indeed, it is only by posing as an
opponent of Yanqui Imperialism that Fidel Castro has achieved an international reputation. If
he had been ignored by Washington, he never would have been anything other than an
obscure authoritarian windbag.
Only a risk that maintaining the embargo does more harm than good
Bandow, 2012
[Douglas, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US
president Ronald Reagan, Time to End the Cuba Embargo, 12-11-12,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo] /Wyo-MB
There is essentially no international support for continuing the embargo. For instance, the
European Union plans to explore improving relations with Havana. Spain’s Deputy Foreign
Minister Gonzalo de Benito explained that the EU saw a positive evolution in Cuba. The hope,
then, is to move forward in the relationship between the European Union and Cuba.¶ The
administration should move now, before congressmen are focused on the next election.
President Obama should propose legislation to drop (or at least significantly loosen) the
WFI 13
Pre Camp
37
Cuba Aff
embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance, granting more
licenses to visit the island.¶ 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.Ӧ 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.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
38
Cuba Aff
Democracy Promotion – Internal Link – Latin American key to
Global Democracy Promotion
Empowering democracy promotion in Latin America is a key part of global
democracy promotion
Curtis, 2011
[Lisa, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage
Foundation, Championing Liberty Abroad to Counter Islamist Extremism, 2-9-11,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/championing-liberty-abroad-to-counterislamist-extremism] /Wyo-MB
As the U.S. promotes democratic principles and institutions abroad, it also needs to be aware
of efforts by autocratic forces to counter democratic progress. Leaders of autocratic regimes,
especially those who rely on economic windfalls from extractive industries or are part of an
oligarchy whose interests are served by the state’s wealth, seek to undercut support for
indigenous democratic movements and have become increasingly adept at doing so.
Authoritarian regimes often invest significant resources into managing and manipulating the
media to promote anti-democratic values. Autocrats are also becoming skilled in establishing
“pseudo-democracies” and using the word “democracy” to argue for anti-democratic
standards.[28] The U.S. needs to better understand these anti-democratic forces in individual
countries and actively counter their strategies.¶ United States Institute of Peace Vice President
Steven Heydemann has recently written about a phenomenon he calls “authoritarian learning.”
Heydemann asserts that authoritarian states are beginning to organize themselves into a group
that is systematically seeking to counterbalance Western, liberal democratic order. He argues
that Iran, Russia, Venezuela, China, and other authoritarian states coordinate their policies and
share success stories of deflecting pressure to democratize. They share this “authoritarian
learning” with Arab regimes to help them resist Western pressure for political reform.[29]
China’s rapid economic growth under an autocratic regime has made the authoritarian model of
governance more appealing and thus poses a serious challenge to democratic reform.[30]¶ A
recent Freedom House survey confirms a global decline in political rights and civil liberties as
the number of countries practicing democracy fell for the fourth consecutive year. The decline
is attributed to restrictions on the free flow of information in China, brutal crackdowns on
protesters in Iran and Egypt, and murder of human rights activists in Russia.[31] Freedom House
also emphasizes that instituting democracy involves far more than holding elections.[32] It
means developing a vibrant and free civil society, functioning and credible political parties, and
active and free media.¶ There is the added complication of politicization of institutions that are
supposed to monitor and oversee democratic processes. A recent example is the widespread
perception of political interference by Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the country’s Electoral
Complaints Commission, which has tainted Afghanistan’s 2010 parliamentary elections. In
February 2010, Karzai used an emergency decree to give himself authority to appoint all
provincial complaints commissioners.[33]¶ The U.S. does not have the luxury of ignoring
autocratic regimes and often must engage with them to achieve specific U.S. foreign policy
objectives. At the same time, the U.S. should not shy away from supporting civil society
leaders and defenders of human rights in these countries. In some cases, U.S. diplomatic
leverage has played a significant role in nudging an autocratic regime in a more democratic
direction.[34] For example, in the 1980s, American diplomats pursued two-track policies of
maintaining state-to-state relations with autocratic regimes in Latin America while pushing for
WFI 13
Pre Camp
39
Cuba Aff
democratic change when opportunities arose.[35]¶ In pursuing this two-track approach, U.S.
public statements take on more weight. U.S. presidential statements in support of democracy
promotion empower civil society leaders seeking democratic change and undermine their
opponents.[36]
WFI 13
Pre Camp
40
Cuba Aff
Democracy Promotion – Impact – Terrorism
Democracy promotion is key to solve extremism, terrorism, and antiamericanism
Curtis, 2011
[Lisa, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage
Foundation, Championing Liberty Abroad to Counter Islamist Extremism, 2-9-11,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/championing-liberty-abroad-to-counterislamist-extremism] /Wyo-MB
The Obama Administration needs to continue its new-found commitment to supporting
democratic ideals and institutions around the globe, especially in Muslim-majority countries
where extremist movements threaten liberal freedoms and, in some cases, the stability of the
state.¶ Encouraging democratic values will not only help to protect citizens from human rights
abuses by authoritarian regimes, but also provide a bulwark against Islamist extremist
movements. Part of the effort to counter extremist ideology will necessarily include
demonstrating that Muslim-majority countries and democratic principles are compatible. The
strategy should also involve countering Islamists, who may not publicly support terrorism but
still seek to subvert democratic systems and pursue an ideology that leads to discrimination
against religious minorities.¶ The wave of protests against authoritarian rule currently
sweeping the Middle East is forcing the Obama Administration to make tough decisions on
how the U.S. will promote democracy and concepts of liberty while guarding against the
possibility of abrupt political changes that anti-American Islamists can exploit to their
advantage. The stakes could not be higher for U.S. interests, especially since the outcome of
the current wave of unrest could profoundly affect both Islamist movements throughout the
Muslim world and support for al-Qaeda and its terrorist agenda.
Democracy promotion is a critical long term strategy to fight terrorism
Curtis, 2011
[Lisa, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage
Foundation, Championing Liberty Abroad to Counter Islamist Extremism, 2-9-11,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/championing-liberty-abroad-to-counterislamist-extremism] /Wyo-MB
The fight against extremism is largely an ideological battle, and the principles of democratic
governance and rule by the people are a powerful antidote to Islamist extremists’ message of
intolerance, hatred, and repression. Daniel Benjamin, current Coordinator for Counterterrorism
at the State Department, noted in a 2008 academic paper that “[t]he U.S. needs a long-term
strategy that makes Muslim societies less incubators for radicalism and more satisfiers of
fundamental human needs.”[15] In a joint report prepared for the 2008 U.S. presidential
campaign, the presidents of the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic
Institute emphasized the importance of democratizing societies as a way to reduce extremism
by allowing avenues of dissent, alternation of power, and protections for minorities.[16]¶
Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, in an academic paper in 2010, also
points to the need to promote ideas favorable to individual rights in Muslim societies. Rather
than focus solely on messaging Muslim communities, Feith argues that U.S. policy must also
develop effective ways to stimulate debate among Muslims themselves on the extremist
ideologies promoted by al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.[17] More specifically, the
WFI 13
Pre Camp
41
Cuba Aff
“[k]ey objective is not to induce Muslims to like the U.S. but to encourage them to reject
understandings of Islam that condone and even encourage violence and subversion against
the U.S. and the West.”[18]¶ The U.S. needs to implement strategies to counter Islamists who
may not publicly condone terrorism but still seek to subvert democratic systems.[19] To do so
successfully, the U.S. will need to engage with Muslim groups and leaders, but it must
navigate this terrain carefully. The American model of religious liberty includes a favorable view
of religious practice, both private and public, and assumes that religious leaders will take an
active role in society.[20] While they may participate in the political process, Islamists’ ideology
often leads to discrimination against religious minorities and other anti-democratic measures
and fuels support for terrorism. After all, Islamist ideology helped to form the basis for the
development of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
42
Cuba Aff
Democracy Promotion – Impact – Laundry List
Human rights and democracy promotion establish stable partners for the
United States that are key to solve climate change, food security, global health
issues, and conflict
USAID, 2013
[US agency for international development, IMPORTANCE OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, &
GOVERNANCE TO DEVELOPMENT, 5-13-13, http://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/democracyhuman-rights-and-governance/importance-democracy-human-rights-governance] /Wyo-MB
USAID recognizes that long-term, sustainable development is closely linked to sound
democratic governance and the protection of human rights. We view the democracy, human
rights, and governance (DRG) sector not in isolation but as a critical framework in which all
aspects of development must advance together. ¶ Our projects in health, education, climate
change, and food security will not be effective and sustainable unless we work to:¶ Support
legitimate, inclusive and sound governance.¶ Protect the basic rights of citizens.¶ Support stable
and peaceful democratic transitions.¶ USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah has called for a “united
approach” to integrate democracy, human rights, and governance considerations with socioeconomic sectors in pursuit of broader U.S. development objectives. ¶ The Administrator
recognizes that inclusive, accountable, and democratic governments are necessary and critical
for ensuring that communities can withstand conflict and/or other shocks and that
development gains are not lost, as well as creating stable partners for the United States.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
43
Cuba Aff
Democracy Promotion – Impact – Economic Growth
Democracy promotion solves economic growth
Lagon, 2011
[Mark, adjunct Senior Fellow for Human Rights Council of Foreign Relations, February 2011,
Promoting Democracy: The Whys and Hows for the United States and the International
Community, http://www.cfr.org/democracy-promotion/promoting-democracy-whys-howsunited-states-international-community/p24090] /Wyo-MB
There has long been controversy about whether democracy enhances economic development.
The dramatic growth of China certainly challenges this notion. Still, history will likely show that
democracy yields the most prosperity. Notwithstanding the global financial turbulence of the
past three years, democracy’s elements facilitate long-term economic growth. These elements
include above all freedom of expression and learning to promote innovation, and rule of law
to foster predictability for investors and stop corruption from stunting growth. It is for that
reason that the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the 2002 UN Financing for
Development Conference in Monterey, Mexico, embraced good governance as the enabler of
development. These elements have unleashed new emerging powers such as India and Brazil
and raised the quality of life for impoverished peoples. Those who argue that economic
development will eventually yield political freedoms may be reversing the order of influences—
or at least discounting the reciprocal relationship between political and economic liberalization.¶
Finally, democracy affords all groups equal access to justice—and equal opportunity to shine
as assets in a country’s economy. Democracy’s support for pluralism prevents human assets—
including religious and ethnic minorities, women, and migrants—from being squandered.
Indeed, a shortage of economic opportunities and outlets for grievances has contributed
significantly to the ongoing upheaval in the Middle East. Pluralism is also precisely what is
needed to stop violent extremism from wreaking havoc on the world.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
44
Cuba Aff
Democracy Promotion – Impact – War
Effective democracy promotion solves war, terrorism and instability
Epstien et al, 2007
[Susan B. Epstein, Nina M. Serafino, and Francis T. Miko Specialists in Foreign Policy Foreign
Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional research service, Democracy Promotion:
Cornerstone of U.S. Foreign Policy?, 12-26-7,
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl34296.pdf] /Wyo-MB
A common rationale offered by proponents of democracy promotion, including¶ former
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and current Secretary of State¶ Condoleezza Rice, is that
democracies do not go to war with one another. This is¶ sometimes referred to as the
democratic peace theory. Experts point to European¶ countries, the United States, Canada,
and Mexico as present-day examples.¶ According to President Clinton’s National Security
Strategy of Engagement and¶ Enlargement: “Democracies create free markets that offer
economic opportunity,¶ make for more reliable trading partners, and are far less likely to
wage war on one¶ another.”22¶ Some have refined this democracy peace theory by
distinguishing between¶ mature democracies and those in transition, suggesting that mature
democracies do¶ not fight wars with each other, but that countries transitioning toward
democracy are¶ more prone to being attacked (because of weak governmental institutions) or
being¶ aggressive toward others. States that made transitions from an autocracy toward¶ early
stages of democracy and were involved in hostilities soon after include France¶ in the mid-1800s
under Napoleon III, Prussia/Germany under Bismarck (1870-1890),¶ Chile shortly before the War
of the Pacific in 1879, Serbia’s multiparty constitutional¶ monarchy before the Balkan Wars of
the late 20th Century, and Pakistan’s military guided pseudo-democracy before its wars with
India in 1965 and 1971.23¶ The George W. Bush Administration asserts that democracy
promotion is a¶ long-term antidote to terrorism. The Administration’s Strategy for Winning
the War¶ on Terror asserts that inequality in political participation and access to wealth¶
resources in a country, lack of freedom of speech, and poor education all breed¶ volatility. By
promoting basic human rights, freedoms of speech, religion, assembly,¶ association and press,
and by maintaining order within their borders and providing¶ an independent justice system,
effective democracies can defeat terrorism in the long¶ run, according to the Bush White
House.24¶ Another reason given to encourage democracies (although debated by some¶ experts)
is the belief that democracies promote economic prosperity. From this¶ perspective, as the rule
of law leads to a more stable society and as equal economic¶ opportunity for all helps to spur
economic activity, economic growth, particularly of¶ per capita income, is likely to follow. In
addition, a democracy under this scenario¶ may be more likely to be viewed by other
countries as a good trading partner and by¶ outside investors as a more stable environment for
investment, according to some¶ experts. Moreover, countries that have developed as stable
democracies are viewed¶ as being more likely to honor treaties, according to some experts.25
WFI 13
Pre Camp
45
Cuba Aff
Democracy Promotion – Impact – Laundry List
DEMOCRACY IS NECESSARY TO AVERT NUCLEAR WAR AND EXTINCTION
CARNEGIE COMMISSION ON PREVENTING DEADLY CONFLICT, “Promoting Democracy in the
1990’s,” October 1995. Available from the World Wide Web at:
http://www.carnegie.org/sub/pubs/deadly/dia95_01.html, accessed 2/20/04.
OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the
coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia 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. LESSONS OF
THE TWENTIETH CENTURY 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.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
46
Cuba Aff
Advantage – Economy
WFI 13
Pre Camp
47
Cuba Aff
Economy – Solvency – Spurs Growth
Lifting embargo leads to US-Cuba engagement and bolsters reforms in Cuba,
and spurs growth of American economic interests
Hanson, Batten, and Ealey, 2013
[Daniel, Dayne, and Harrison, Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American
Enterprise Institute. Dayne Batten is affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department
of Public Policy. Harrison Ealey is a financial analyst, It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless
Embargo Of Cuba, 1-16-13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-theu-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/] /Wyo-MB
What’s worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less
friendly to American interests. For instance, in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela
for the construction of an underwater communications link, circumventing its need to connect
with US-owned networks close to its shores. Repealing the embargo would fit into an
American precedent of lifting trade and travel restrictions to countries who demonstrate
progress towards democratic ideals. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered
normal trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were still in
clear violation of several US resolutions condemning their human rights practices. China, a
communist country and perennial human rights abuser, is the U.S.’s second largest trading
partner, and in November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were lessened notwithstanding a
fifty year history of genocide and human trafficking propagated by its military government.
Which, of course, begs the question: when will the U.S. see fit to lift the embargo? If Cuba is
trending towards democracy and free markets, what litmus test must be passed for the
embargo to be rolled back? The cost of the embargo to the United States is high in both dollar
and moral terms, but it is higher for the Cuban people, who are cut off from the supposed
champion of liberty in their hemisphere because of an antiquated Cold War dispute. The
progress being made in Cuba could be accelerated with the help of American charitable relief,
business innovation, and tourism. A perpetual embargo on a developing nation that is moving
towards reform makes little sense, especially when America’s allies are openly hostile to the
embargo. It keeps a broader discussion about smart reform in Cuba from gaining life, and it
makes no economic sense. It is time for the embargo to go.
Lifting the embargo spurs two-way economic growth in multiple sectors of the
United States and Cuban economies
Brinkley, 2012
[Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford University, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former
foreign correspondent for The New York Times, Cuba embargo isn't working but isn't going
away, http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/cuba-embargo-isnt-working-but-isnt-goingaway-85281_Page2.html] /Wyo-MB
Now an argument can be made that if the half-century of political paralysis on this issue can be
overcome, both Cuba and the United States would benefit. American tourists would most
likely pour into Cuba, buying cigars, staying in beachfront hotels — spending money in the
Cuban economy. And American businesses would find an eager new market for a range of
products beyond the food and medicine they are already authorized to sell.¶ “We cannot afford
an obsolete ideological war against Cuba,” Richard Slatta, a history professor at North Carolina
State University who specializes in Latin America, wrote in an op-ed last month. “The embargo
WFI 13
Pre Camp
48
Cuba Aff
against Cuba denies North Carolina businesses and farmers access to a major, proximate
market.Ӧ Cuba experts say many business leaders, particularly, are making the same case,
especially now that the American economy has remained in the doldrums for so long. They
add that it’s an obvious second-term issue; Obama doesn’t have to worry about winning Florida
again.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
49
Cuba Aff
Economy – Solvency – Relations Solve Economic
Interdependence
Cuban relations are key to global economic interdependence
Lievan 7 (Anatal. "Its Time to Trade with Cuba," International Herald Tribune, April 26,
cuba.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/its_time_to_trade_with_cuba_5261)
To things should be clear concerning America’s Cuba policy: Everything the United States has
tried over the past five decades has failed, and it is high time that Washington does something
to help transform the country’s Communist system. The impending transition of power from
Fidel Castro to his brother Raúl gives Washington the chance to adopt a new strategy. But if the
United States sticks to the current approach it will help consolidate Communist rule for many
years to come. A changed stance is crucial for many reasons, not least because it offers the
chance to cut the link between Cuba’s professional skills and Venezuelan oil wealth. Thanks to
its great success in education, Cuba has large reserves of well-trained doctors, nurses,
teachers and engineers. The government of Hugo Chávez can now pay for these professionals
to help not only Venezuelans, but people in many other countries. Venezuela is heavily outspending the United States in humanitarian and development aid in the region, and Cuban
skills are making Venezuelan money effective. This is occurring not just in Latin America.
Cuban aid, paid for by Caracas, is now going to earthquake victims in Asia. All of this is not bad
in itself. The danger is that this Cuban-Venezuelan axis will stimulate anti-American populism
across the whole region. If the risks of keeping the status quo in place seem obvious, it is even
more evident that Washington’s travel bans, economic sanctions, and the refusal to extend
diplomatic ties to Cuba have not only failed, they have damaged Washington’s interests.
These tough measures have harmed both ordinary Cubans and Washington’s relations with
Latin America and Europe. They have strengthened Cuba’s Communist regime by increasing
the state’s grip on key economic resources, and they have helped cement Cuba’s alliance with
Venezuela. Since we have not succeeded in bullying the Cubans into submission, we should try
to woo them by offering trade with the United States and integration into the international
market system. How long could the Communist economy -- or the Communist government -survive such an opening? There may be good arguments for imposing tough sanctions against
particular countries at particular times to bring about specific policy changes. This is true of the
sanctions imposed on Iran and North Korea to curb their nuclear ambitions. But for such
sanctions to work they must have international support, and, in the case of Cuba, there is no
chance of this whatsoever. There is a key practical and ethical difference between sanctions
with specific goals and sanctions extended over decades that are intended to bring about
regime change. Sanctions leveled against Iran today may be justified. But U.S. sanctions imposed
in the era before President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power blocked Iranian reforms,
undermined the country’s liberals, strengthened the clerical regime’s grip on the economy and
perpetuated its rule. The Washington establishment talks of the superiority of the free market
system, and America’s duty to spread that system in the world. Capitalism is by no means a
cure-all, and even a capitalist Cuba might still challenge U.S. policies. Nonetheless, the course of
human development would tend to suggest that free market states are far more likely to try to
resolve their problems in ways that do not disrupt the international economic stability on
which all depend.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
50
Cuba Aff
Economy – Solvency – Trade Relations
Lifting the embargo solves trade relations and bolsters US national interests
abroad
Pomerantz, 2013
[Phyllis, professor of the practice of public policy at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public
Policy and a former staff member of the World Bank, Now’s the time to lift the U.S. embargo on
Cuba, 1-1-13, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/nows-the-time-to-lift-the-usembargo-on-cuba/article6790494/] /Wyo-MB
Yet, Cuba is still treated as a pariah, a bizarre relic of the Cold War. I just returned from a visit
there and realized that lifting the embargo would be to both countries’ advantage. Americans
would have full access to Cuba’s rich culture and natural beauty, and some new trade and
investment opportunities. Cuba would have expanded economic options, which it needs to
improve the material well-being of its citizens.¶ The U.S. has had normal diplomatic and
commercial relationships with regimes and despots of all stripes – from Mobutu in Zaire to
Mubarak in Egypt. The list is long. So what makes Cuba so special?¶ Is it because it is so close to
the continental United States? No – the U.S. has had a good, if testy, formal relationship with
Mexico for many years, including when it was a one-party state.¶ Is it because Cuba poses a
military threat? Maybe, once upon a time. But if Americans got over the Vietnam War, they
surely can put the Cuban (or was that Soviet?) missile crisis behind them, especially since the
U.S. now has quite a normal relationship with Russia.¶ What about a security threat? Arguably,
almost every country could be wittingly or unwittingly harboring extremist plotters. Somehow,
though, I don’t think al-Qaeda operatives are drinking mojitos on Cuban beaches. Cuba loosened
its ban on organized religion some time ago, but imagining either the government or its people
sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalism is quite a stretch.¶ Is it because Cuba lacks economic
opportunities for U.S. business? Granted, it’s not a potential powerhouse such as Russia, China
or even Vietnam for commercial purposes. But the U.S. has maintained good relationships (and
made money) with many small, poor countries. What’s one more?¶ Is it because Americans are
standing on principle over Cuba’s human-rights record or strident rhetoric? It’s hard to argue
this when the White House has entertained leaders of countries with even worse records and
positions. Moreover, many of those countries do not have education, health-care or food
systems that reach the poor. Cuba does, although increasingly it is a challenge.¶ Of course,
America should care about human rights and, along with that, everyone should have access to
adequate food, education and health care. But sadly, none of these reasons explain why the
U.S. keeps a strict embargo on Cuba and has no diplomatic relationship with it.¶ No, the real
reason is because of a small vocal minority (Cuban-American exiles and their families) who
happen to be clustered in an electoral swing state (Florida) that gives them political clout. Some
say the attitudes of the younger generation are softening toward Cuba. Does Washington really
need to wait another generation or two?¶ The U.S. stand on Cuba is incomprehensible and only
serves to look hypocritical and arbitrary in the eyes of a world that doesn’t understand the
intricacies of American politics. Now that the election is over, there is a window of opportunity
to open up a full commercial and diplomatic relationship. Mr. Obama should use the full
extent of his executive powers to immediately relax restrictions, and Congress should pass
legislation lifting the remaining legal obstacles.¶ It’s time to forget about old grudges and
remember that the best way to convert an enemy into a friend is to embrace him. Instead of
admiring Havana’s old cars, Americans should be selling them new ones.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
51
Cuba Aff
Plan solves US-Cuban relations, boosts economic growth and trade, and fosters
democratic ideals in Cuba
Griswold, 2009
[Daniel, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.,
The US Embargo of Cuba Is a Failure, 6-15-9, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/usembargo-cuba-is-failure] /Wyo-MB
Obama should lift the embargo. Allowing more travel and farm exports to Cuba will be good
for democracy and the economy¶ After nearly 50 years, America’s cold war embargo against
Cuba appears to be thawing at last. Earlier this spring, the Obama administration relaxed
controls on travel and remittances to the communist island by Cuban Americans, and last week
it agreed to open the door for Cuba’s re-entry to the Organisation of American States.¶
Admitting Cuba to the OAS may be premature, given the organisation’s charter that requires its
members to be democracies that respect human rights, but changes to the US economic
embargo are long overdue.¶ The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not
changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban
citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without
making them one bit more free. At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom
to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports.¶
Ҧ Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow more
travel and farm exports to Cuba.Ӧ As a tool of US foreign policy, the embargo actually
enhances the Castro government’s standing by giving it a handy excuse for the failures of the
island’s Caribbean-style socialism. Brothers Fidel and Raul can rail for hours about the suffering
the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by their communist policies has
been far worse. The embargo has failed to give us an ounce of extra leverage over what
happens in Havana.¶ In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act allows cash-only sales to Cuba of US farm
products and medical supplies. The results of this modest opening have been quite amazing.
Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $691m in
2008. The top US exports by value are corn, meat and poultry, wheat and soybeans. From dead
last, Cuba is now the number six customer in Latin America for US agricultural products. Last
year, American farmers sold more to the 11.5 million people who live in Cuba than to the 200
million people in Brazil.¶ According to the US international trade commission, US farm exports
would increase another $250m if restrictions were lifted on export financing. This should not
be interpreted as a call for export-import bank subsidies. Trade with Cuba must be entirely
commercial and market driven. Lifting the embargo should not mean that US taxpayers must
now subsidise exports to Cuba. But neither should the government stand in the way.¶ USITC
estimates do not capture the long-term export potential to Cuba from normalised relations. The
Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Guatemala spend an average of 2.8% of their GDP
to buy farm exports from the US. If Cuba spent the same share of its GDP on US farm exports,
exports could more than double the current level, to $1.5bn a year.¶ Advocates of the embargo
argue that trading with Cuba will only put dollars into the coffers of the Castro regime. And
it’s true that the government in Havana, because it controls the economy, can skim off a large
share of the remittances and tourist dollars spent in Cuba. But of course, selling more US
products to Cuba would quickly relieve the Castro regime of those same dollars.¶ If more US
tourists were permitted to visit Cuba, and at the same time US exports to Cuba were further
liberalised, the US economy could reclaim dollars from the Castro regime as fast as the regime
could acquire them. In effect, the exchange would be of agricultural products for tourism
WFI 13
Pre Camp
52
Cuba Aff
services, a kind of “bread for beaches”, “food for fun” trade relationship.¶ Meanwhile, the
increase in Americans visiting Cuba would dramatically increase contact between Cubans and
Americans. The unique US-Cuban relationship that flourished before Castro could be renewed,
which would increase US influence and potentially hasten the decline of the communist
regime.¶ Congress and President Barack Obama should act now to lift the embargo to allow
more travel and farm exports to Cuba. Expanding our freedom to travel to, trade with and
invest in Cuba would make Americans better off and would help the Cuban people and speed
the day when they can enjoy the freedom they deserve.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
53
Cuba Aff
Economy – Solvency – Hemispheric Relations Key to Economy
Hemispheric co-operation is key to preventing illegal immigration from
collapsing the economy
Brookings 8 (The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations:
A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx)
Migration is a powerful and dynamic force changing economies and societies across the
Western Hemisphere. Half a million Bolivians and a quarter-million Paraguayans have migrated to Argentina. Hundreds of
thousands of Colombians live in Venezuela today, and thousands of Nicaraguans reside in Costa Rica. But by far the most important
migration flows have been from the LAC countries to the United States—nearly 40 million people have migrated from the LAC region
to the hemisphere’s largest economy. At the same time, immigration has become highly controversial in U.S. politics and has
become a major source of tension in U.S. relations with some LAC countries, especially Mexico, which is by far the largest migrantsending country. On balance, the
impact of immigration on the U.S. economy has been significant and
positive. Estimates of the net benefits to the U.S. economy put immigrants’ net contribution at $50 billion per year.
Immigrants boost economic output by increasing the size of the U.S. workforce and the
productivity of American firms. In the 1990s, half the growth in the U.S. labor force came from new immigrants.
Fifteen percent of the U.S. civilian labor force is foreign born, with about 40 percent of it
coming from a LAC country. On balance, immigrants pay enough or more in federal, state, and
local taxes to offset what they consume in public services. Low-skilled immigrants (a category that
includes most immigrants from the LAC countries) contribute to the economy by complementing an
increasingly educated native-born workforce. In the decades ahead, the U.S. economy will continue
to demand immigrant labor. Because of historically low U.S. birthrates and the aging of the
baby boom generation, the total number of native-born workers will grow very little between 2000 and 2020. Those
workers will be, on average, better educated every year and therefore less likely to accept unskilled jobs. Immigrants and
their offspring will be crucial for filling those jobs, keeping the U.S. labor force young and
dynamic, and for keeping the pension system in balance. For the hemispheric labor market to
function, illegal immigration must be addressed. Its negative effects are a product of its illegal
nature, not of immigration itself. Illegality pervades the lives of undocumented workers, undermines the rule of law in
the United States, and exposes immigrants to abuse. It also harms native-born workers and legal
immigrants by making them less competitive in some segments of the labor market , and it
exacerbates social and cultural tensions that can stigmatize law-abiding Hispanic and Latino residents and U.S. citizens. In the United
States,
the chief beneficiaries of illegal immigration are lawbreaking employers and smugglers
of illicit goods and people. An Ineffective Approach The current U.S. approach to immigration—based
largely on devoting more and more resources to border control—has failed to achieve its objectives. The number of
border patrol officers has more than tripled since 1996 to 18,000—about 9 officers per mile of border. Line-watch hours spent
policing the U.S. border have increased annually from 2 million to more than 9 million. The ongoing construction of a 700-mile-long,
16-foot fence along segments of the United States–Mexico border has become the most visible symbol of this approach. About half
of this fence has been completed, and its total eventual cost is estimated at $6–12 billion. Yet
increases in funding, the
construction of the border fence, and the expansion of the U.S. Border Patrol have not had a
significant impact on illegal immigration flows. Since 2000, the size of the illegal immigrant
population has grown by more than 40 percent; four out of five of these immigrants come from a LAC country. As
figure 4 indicates, the number of hours spent policing the border has increased dramatically since the early 1990s. However, studies
based on interviews with illegal migrants suggest that the probability of apprehension has remained constant. Meanwhile, the fence
damages the global image of a country that has historically pLrindewdaittcshelhfoounrsi(tmsiollpioens)immigrationpolicy. There are
several reasons for this failure. The
first is that the flow of people and vehicles across the border is so
large that policing it effectively is extremely difficult, regardless of the resources allocated to
border control. Mexico is the United States’ third-largest trading partner, and most of that trade crosses by land. Every day,
there are 1 million legal crossings of the United States–Mexico border. A quarter-million private vehicles and 12,000 trucks cross the
border into the United States daily, without counting the traffic running in the opposite direction. Even with large budgets and
WFI 13
Pre Camp
54
Cuba Aff
modern equipment, the
U.S. Border Patrol can only inspect a small fraction of the vehicles and
persons entering the United States. In addition, tighter policing has made illegal border crossing
more dangerous and expensive for migrants,bu tthis has neither deterred them from
attempting to cross nor prevented them from succeeding. Those intent on crossing the border
have found new ways to circumvent more stringent policing. Immigrants are increasingly turning to
professional people smugglers, known as coyotes, whose fee for helping migrants cross has nearly quadrupled since the early 1990s
to more than $2,000 per person today. Hiring a coyote virtually guarantees entry into the United States, and the promise of tenfold
increases in earning power in the United States remains a powerful enticement for would-be immigrants. More
illegal
immigrants are also using legal ports of entry to enter the country with fake documents or by
making false declarations of U.S. citizenship. According to a recent Government Accountability Office study using
undercover investigators, the probability of a successful crossing through legal ports of entry is 93 percent. The increased
costs and risks of crossing the border are having an unintended, negative effect for the United
States: They are creating incentives for migrants to resettle permanently in the United States,
rather than to go back and forth between the two countries based on shifts in U.S. labor
demand. Meanwhile, enforcement of immigration laws inside the United States remains weak, primarily in the workplace. From
1986 to 2002, the U.S. government directed 60 percent of immigration enforcement funding to border control—six times the
amount allocated to internal law enforcement. Among the OECD countries, the United States has some of the weakest employer
sanctions for hiring illegal workers, and workplace enforcement in the United States is inconsistent and easily avoided. The failure of
the U.S. Congress and federal government to agree on comprehensive immigration reform has led state and local governments to
devise their own solutions, creating a patchwork of policies ranging from welcoming and inclusive to exclusionary and hostile. In
2007, 1,059 immigration- related bills and resolutions were introduced in state legislatures nationwide. Of these, 167 have been
enacted. Many more initiatives and ordinances have been introduced at the city and county levels. So far, the problem of illegal
immigration has been treated by the U.S. authorities mainly as a law enforcement problem tobe handled primarily, if not exclusively,
by the United States. However, to develop
more effective policies, migration needs to be framed in a
wider context. Immigration is a transnational issue whose effective management requires
cooperation between migrant-sending and -receiving countries. If migration from the LAC
countries to the United States is to be legal, humane, and responsive to the economic needs
of both the receiving and sending countries, both sides must accept certain responsibilities.
Hemispheric relations is key to regional multilateral trade
Brookings 8 (The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations:
A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx)
In many ways, the core of the relationship between the United States and the LAC region is economic. U.S. companies and
individuals have nearly $200 billion invested in the region, most of it in Mexico and Brazil. More
than 18,000 U.S.
companies have operations in Mexico, and a fifth of all U.S. trade is with the LAC countries.
About 25 million U.S. residents travel to the LAC countries every year for business and
pleasure. Households in the LAC countries received about $60 billion in remittance inflows in 2007 alone, much of it from
relatives living in the United States. Mexico is by far the largest recipient of remittances in absolute terms, but in the small
economies of El Salvador, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, and Nicaragua, remittances represent a major share of national income.
The flows also run the other way. The LAC
countries invest heavily in the United States. In 2007 alone, the
United States received capital inflows of $120 billion from the LAC countries. About 17 million
people from these countries visit the United States every year. The United States is the main trading
partner of countries as diverse as Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela. Trade and financial flows have grown over time,
and in the process they have generated economic opportunities for all parties involved. Nowhere has deepening hemispheric
integration been clearer than in trade. Between 1996 and 2007, the
cumulative growth of U.S. exports to the LAC
region was higher than to all other regions and to the world as a whole,
as shown in figure 5. Mexico
remains by far the United States’ most important trading partner in the LAC region (accounting for 58 percent of the region’s trade
with the United States), but U.S. trade with other LAC countries, especially Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Peru, has been growing
at double-digit rates.
Trade with the LAC countries benefits the United States. It gives U.S.
companies access to a $3.5 trillion market of 600 million people and access to low-cost
WFI 13
Pre Camp
55
Cuba Aff
suppliers, which increases their competitiveness in world markets . The LAC countries buy
goods produced by skilled workers in the United States, and these workers benefit from
greater demand for their labor and receive higher wages. Meanwhile, shareholders in U.S.
companies benefit from more competitive and profitable firms, and American consumers
enjoy access to lower-priced goods of greater quality and variety. At the same time, trade with the United
States is critical to the economies of many LAC countries. Trade accounts for a third of Mexico’s economy, and more than 80 percent
of its exports go to the United States. All the Central American, Caribbean, and Andean countries count the United States as their
single most important export market, with between 40 and 50 percent of their total exports headed to the hemisphere’s largest
economy. Hemispheric Trade: Running Out of Steam? Despite
the benefits of hemispheric trade, domestic
political support for trade liberalization is weakening in the United States. Between December 1999
and March 2007, the number of Americans who believe that trade agreements hurt the United States grew by 16 percentage points,
to 46 percent, while the marginalized from the rest of the economy for geographic, ethnic, or political reasons are unlikely to
partake in the benefits of free trade. Trade initiatives must work in tandem with targeted development and poverty-reduction
policies. With
the Doha Round gridlocked and the FTAA fading, bilateral trade deals have
become the preferred method for expanding U.S.-LAC trade. Since 2003, the United States has signed trade
agreements with Chile, Peru, Panama, Colombia, and—through the Central America–Dominican Republic–United States Free Trade
Agreement—Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. The Colombia and Panama
agreements are still awaiting congressional approval in the United States. Figure 6 shows all
the countries in the
Americas with which the United States has signed bilateral trade agreements. The trend toward
bilateral free trade agreements is not a welcome development. Compared with multilateral agreements, bilateral agreements are an
inferior way to promote trade. These
bilateral agreements create trade diversion, make trade rules and
regulations complex and cumbersome, draw political and diplomatic resources away from
multilateral trade negotiations, and put relatively small economies in bilateral negotiations
with the United States, where they have limited leverage. Bilateral agreements should be
seen, at best, as very imperfect substitutes for multilateral trade liberalization.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
56
Cuba Aff
Advantage – Hemispheric Relations
WFI 13
Pre Camp
57
Cuba Aff
Hemispheric Relations – Inherency – Embargo Makes US Look
Bad
The Embargo Makes US look bad internationally
Hanson, Batten, and Ealey, 2013
[Daniel, Dayne, and Harrison, Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American
Enterprise Institute. Dayne Batten is affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department
of Public Policy. Harrison Ealey is a financial analyst, It's Time For The U.S. To End Its Senseless
Embargo Of Cuba, 1-16-13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-theu-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/] /Wyo-MB
At present, the U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a
point of friction between the United States and allies in Europe, South America, and Canada.
Every year since 1992, the U.S. has been publically condemned in the United Nations for
maintaining counterproductive and worn out trade and migration restrictions against Cuba
despite the fact that nearly all 5,911 U.S. companies nationalized during the Castro takeover
have dropped their claims.
Current stance erodes US influence in Cuba and Latin America and undermines
democracy and human rights promotion
Huddleston and Pascual, 2010
[Vicki and Carlos, Leaders of Advisory group for policy recommendations on Cuba, Vicki is
deputy assistant secretary for Africa at the Department of Defense and Carlos is ambassador to
Mexico, Learning to Salsa: New Steps in U.S.-Cuba Relations, Brookings Institutions Press 2010]
/Wyo-MB
Engagement does not mean approval of the Cuban government’s policies, nor should it indicate
a wish to control internal developments in Cuba; legitimate changes in Cuba will only come from
the actions of Cubans. If the United States is to play a positive role in Cuba’s future, it must not
indulge in hostile rhetoric nor obstruct a dialogue on issues that would advance democracy,
justice, and human rights as well as our broader national interests. Perversely, the policy of
seeking to isolate Cuba, rather than achieving its objective, has contributed to undermining
the well-being of the Cuban people and to eroding U.S. influence in Cuba and Latin America. It
has reinforced the Cuban government’s power over its citizens by increasing their dependence
on it for every aspect of their livelihood. By slowing the flow of ideas and information, we
have unwittingly helped Cuban state security delay Cuba’s political and economic evolution
toward a more open and representative government. And by too tightly embracing Cuba’s
brave dissidents, we have provided the Cuban authorities with an excuse to denounce their
legitimate efforts to build a more open society.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
58
Cuba Aff
Hemispheric Relations – Inherency – Now is Key to Boost
Relations
Cuba has made moves to boost relations, it is up the U.S. to take steps to build
the relationship
Sweig, 2012
[Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and
Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, 2-28-12, The Frozen U.S.-Cuba
Relationship, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/frozen-us-cuba-relationship/p27510] /Wyo-MB
Fifty years after the United States enacted an embargo on all trade and commercial
transactions with Cuba, relations between the two countries remain at a standstill. Julia E. Sweig,
CFR's director of Latin American studies, says the Obama administration has prioritized domestic politics
over foreign policy in its relationship with Cuba, even as Cuban President Raul Castro has been
"moving in the direction of the kind of reforms that every administration over the last fifty
years has called upon Cuba to make." The case of American USAID contractor Alan Gross, currently serving a fifteenyear prison sentence in Cuba (CubanTriangle) on charges of attempting to upend the regime through a U.S.-authorized democracy
promotion program, has also heightened tensions, she says. Meanwhile, Sweig adds, Cuba
is strengthening ties with
global powers like Brazil, as well as the Catholic Church, as the Castro administration seeks to open up
new economic and social spaces for its citizens.¶ We've passed the fifty-year mark of the breakdown of
diplomatic ties between Cuba and the United States. Where do we stand now? Is normalizing relations even remotely on the table
on either side?¶ Let me start by talking about three geographical points on the map that are relevant to the answer. In Washington,
the Obama administration, consistent with the approach of the Bush administration, has made a political decision to subordinate
foreign policy and national interest-based decisions to domestic politics with respect to its Cuba policy. There is a bipartisan group of
members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate--who represent Florida, a state where there are many swing
votes that deliver the electoral votes for any president. Those individuals not only deliver votes, but they deliver campaign finance,
and generally make a lot of noise, and that combination has persuaded the White House that reelection is more of a priority than
taking on the heavy lifting to set the United States on the path of normalization with Cuba for now.¶ The second point is what's
happening in Cuba. It's
not realistic to expect the United States to undertake a series of unilateral
moves toward normalization; it needs a willing partner. I believe we have one in Havana but
have failed to read the signals. Raul Castro has now been in office since the beginning of 2008. Raul holds
the reins on both foreign policy and domestic policy, and, domestically, the politics of implementing a fairly wide
range of economic and political and social reforms are his priority. In a deal that was coordinated with the
help of the Cuban Catholic Church and Spain, he released all of the political prisoners in Cuba. He also is taking a number of steps
that imply a major rewriting of the social contract in Cuba to shrink the size of the state and give Cuban individuals more freedom-economically, especially, but also in terms of speech--than we've seen in the last fifty years. He has privatized the residential real
estate and car market[s], expanded much-needed agrarian reform, lifted caps on salaries, and greatly expanded space for small
businesses. He also is moving to deal with corruption and to prepare the groundwork for a great deal more foreign investment.
He's moving in the direction of the kind of reforms that every administration over the last fifty
years has called upon Cuba to make, albeit under the rubric of a one-party system. There's a
broad range of cooperation--neighborhood security in the Gulf of Mexico, as Cuba has just
started drilling for oil, counternarcotics, and natural disasters--between the two countries that
is still not happening, and that gives me the impression that the United States has been
unwilling to take "yes" for an answer and respond positively to steps taken by Cuba.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
59
Cuba Aff
Hemispheric Relations – Solvency – Engagement Solves Relations
Anti-Americanism is growing in Latin America – extending an olive branch to
Cuba is necessary to re-establish our regional soft power
Perez JD Yale Law School 2010 David “America's Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy
Recommendation for the U.S. State Department” Harvard Latino Law Review 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 counternarcotics 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 Andean-descent 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.
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.
[*191]
WFI 13
Pre Camp
60
Cuba Aff
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.
The plan leads to broader cooperation and influence in the region and globally
Perez JD Yale Law School 2010 David “America's Cuba Policy: The Way Forward: A Policy
Recommendation for the U.S. State Department” Harvard Latino Law Review lexis
[*195] Third, the Obama Administration ignores Latin America at its own peril. Latin America's
importance to the United States is growing by the day, and cannot be overstated. While the issue
of U.S.-Cuba relations is obviously of smaller import than many other issues currently
affecting the world (i.e., the ailing economy, climate change, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction), addressing
it would also involve correspondingly less effort than those issues, but could potentially lead
to a disproportionately high return by making regional cooperation more likely. n20 In order
to confront any of the major world issues facing the United States, Washington must find a way
to cooperate with its neighbors, who generally view U.S. policy toward Cuba as the most
glaring symbol of its historic inability to constructively engage the region. These three reasons
combine for a perfect storm: to the extent that a healthy U.S.-Cuban relationship would mean a
healthier U.S.-Latin America relationship, the former should be pursued with an
unprecedented vigor, one that has been absent for the last fifty years.
Aside from the strategic importance of this issue, addressing these concerns might also prevent more serious
problems in the future. Although the chances of a post-Castro Cuba becoming a failed state are slim, the threat is
nevertheless real. If the state were to collapse, the island could plunge into civil war, face a
humanitarian crisis, become a major drug trafficking center, experience a massive migration
to Florida, or endure a combination of each. However, a new and comprehensive policy
toward Cuba can help prevent these nightmare scenarios from materializing.
There is no doubt that America's diminished image in Latin America means that it will face
additional difficulty when trying to accomplish its regional goals. n21 To address the issues
confronting the United States vis-a-vis Latin America (i.e., drugs, the environment, trade, labor
and human rights), Washington must restore its heavily damaged image and regain its place
as the region's trendsetter and leader. Resolving America's "Cuba problem" is a low-cost/high-reward
strategy that would inject new energy and credibility into America's image. The Eight Recommendations
found in this proposal are suggestions that the Obama Administration should consider as it moves to reengage Latin America. Part of
America's greatness is its ability to inspire practical solutions in people. Any new U.S.-Cuban policy should embrace not only
America's uncanny ability to reinvent itself, but also the pragmatism that has made America so great to begin with.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
61
Cuba Aff
Engagement solves Anti-Americanism and is key to leadership on human rights
and democracy promotion and is key to a new bilateral relationship
Huddleston and Pascual, 2010
[Vicki and Carlos, Leaders of Advisory group for policy recommendations on Cuba, Vicki is
deputy assistant secretary for Africa at the Department of Defense and Carlos is ambassador to
Mexico, Learning to Salsa: New Steps in U.S.-Cuba Relations, Brookings Institutions Press 2010]
/Wyo-MB
The advisory group of the Brookings Institution project U.S. Policy toward a Cuba in Transition
came to the unanimous conclusion that President Barack Obama should commit to a longterm 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 aims 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.
Engagement with Cuba is key to United States diplomatic leadership
Huddleston and Pascual, 2010
[Vicki and Carlos, Leaders of Advisory group for policy recommendations on Cuba, Vicki is
deputy assistant secretary for Africa at the Department of Defense and Carlos is ambassador to
Mexico, Learning to Salsa: New Steps in U.S.-Cuba Relations, Brookings Institutions Press 2010]
/Wyo-MB
For the United States, reorienting its approach to Cuba by working with other hemispheric
actors and the Cuban government will be essential to creating wider and more meaningful
capacity to leverage change in Cuba. A strategy that develops a common perspective with our
partners will be most likely to encourage Cuba’s leaders to undertake measures that will allow
Cuba to begin an evolution toward democracy, respect for human rights, and transparent and
equitable development. In pursuing such a shift in strategy, the United States also wins
WFI 13
Pre Camp
62
Cuba Aff
diplomatically, both by eliminating a policy of isolation that has been perhaps the most
acrimonious issue is U.S. relations with the rest of the hemisphere and by depriving Cuba of
the argument that its failures are due to U.S. policies rather than to its own shortcomings.
Maintaining the embargo is the hight of US hypocrisy—we should abandon this
policy for engagement to align the United States stance toward cuba with the
rest of the world
Wilkins, 2013
[Brett, founder and editor of MoralLowGround.com, is an author and social justice advocate
based in San Francisco, California, US Cuba Embargo is Height of Hypocrisy, 4-17-13,
http://morallowground.com/2013/04/17/us-cuba-embargo-is-height-of-hypocrisy/] /Wyo-MB
The US economic embargo of Cuba, which is opposed by just about every nation on earth, is
more than an outdated Cold War relic. It is the very height of hypocrisy.¶ The embargo has
been in the news lately after the entertainment world’s leading power couple, Jay-Z and
Beyoncé, visited Cuba earlier this month. Although their trip was approved by the US
government as an educational, person-to-person exchange, some conservative lawmakers
howled holy hell over what they perceived as an expression of support for the Castro
dictatorship. Cuban-American Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) called the couple “hypocritical.” Rep.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also a Cuban-American, invoked the “suffering of the Cuban people” under
communist dictatorship in blasting their trip to the island. This, the same Ros-Lehtinen who
unabashedly supports some of the hemisphere’s most notorious and murderous terrorists, men
who have inflicted much death and suffering upon the Cuban people.¶ To any educated observer
it is immediately obvious that the real hypocrites are not Jay-Z and Beyoncé, but rather the US
leaders and lawmakers who have brought enormous death and suffering to a nation that has
not posed any threat whatsoever to the United States in half a century. On the contrary, the
US has been waging a relentless campaign of terrorism and economic strangulation against
Cuba ever since John F. Kennedy declared his intention to “unleash the terrors of the earth”
upon Cuba more than 50 years ago. There was the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion, support for
Miami-based Cuban exile terrorists who killed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent
civilians, possible chemical and biological attacks against Cuban agriculture, and Operation
Mongoose– a CIA plan under which dozens of failed assassination attempts against Fidel
Castro were undertaken. There was even a plan to carry out airplane hijackings and terror
bombings in American cities and blame them on Cuba in order to provoke a war. Fortunately,
the false-flag operation known as Operation Northwoods never came to fruition.¶ And what
retaliation did Cuba take against all this US provocation? Absolutely none. Perhaps that’s part
of the reason why nearly every nation on earth has repeatedly voted to condemn the US
embargo and call for its immediate lifting. The UN recently voted 188-3 to condemn the
absurd embargo. The United States, Israel and the tiny, US-dependent island nation of Palau
(population 20,000) were the only countries which voted against the measure.¶ As for claims
that Cuba is run by a monstrously brutal communist dictatorship, well, let’s just say that the
US supports far worse regimes around the world. Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Uzbekistan,
Turkmenistan, Iraq and Bahrain are all far worse human rights violators than Cuba. Israel,
which receives $3 billion in annual US military aid, is the only nation on earth which
simultaneously practices occupation, apartheid, colonization and ethnic cleansing.
Meanwhile, things are slowly but inexorably changing in Havana. There are less than 100
political prisoners in Cuba. There have been no executions in many years. Economic reforms
abound. And for the first time in generations, Cubans are free to travel abroad without
WFI 13
Pre Camp
63
Cuba Aff
obtaining exit visas.¶ Yes, the Castro regime is the only totalitarian government left in the
Americas. But the regime’s days are almost certainly numbered and the US is supremely
hypocritical in selectively singling out Cuba for collective punishment when Washington does
business with far worse dictators– even communists. As Jay-Z rapped in his recently-released
“Open Letter”: “I’m in Cuba, I love Cubans/This communist talk is so confusing/When it’s from
China, the very mic I’m using.” US leaders really ought to be careful when pointing the finger at
Cuba. After all, no other nation on the face of the earth has killed more innocent civilians in
more countries outside its own borders since the end of WWII than the United States. No
other nation even comes close. US atrocities make worldwide headlines on almost a daily basis–
witness yesterday’s release of a bipartisan task force study of American torture. If you surveyed
all the world’s people on which country, Cuba or the United States, is more worthy of censure,
I’d bet the house that at least 90 percent of humanity would choose the latter.¶ The absurdly
hypocritical embargo against the peaceful people of Cuba must end. It should have ended
decades ago. The US has proven it can bury the hatchet and embrace nations that have
actually done great damage to it (see Germany and Japan). Cuba has repeatedly expressed and
demonstrated its willingness to open a new chapter in the US-Cuban relationship. Only
Washington, influenced by a tiny yet powerfully connected clique of Cuban-Americans, stands
in the way of open, peaceful relations. Only Washington can restore sanity. The time for
action is now.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
64
Cuba Aff
Hemispheric Relations – Impact – Laundry List
Relations with Cuba solve a host of impacts—environment, disease, and
organized crime
Huddleston and Pascual, 2010
[Vicki and Carlos, Leaders of Advisory group for policy recommendations on Cuba, Vicki is
deputy assistant secretary for Africa at the Department of Defense and Carlos is ambassador to
Mexico, Learning to Salsa: New Steps in U.S.-Cuba Relations, Brookings Institutions Press 2010]
/Wyo-MB
Finally, it is striking that debates on policy within the United States and at times with other
governments have been more acrimonious than exchanges among professionals, including the
military, when they have had the opportunity to engage directly. The United States, Cuba, and
others in the hemisphere have a common interest in working together on issues that impact
the hemisphere such as humanitarian emergencies, improving the environment, preventing
disease, and dealing with organized crime. The link between organized crime and drugs has
become pernicious in the hemisphere, affecting every country on the supply or demand side
of the chain or on transit routes; weaknesses at any point in the chain can provide a safe
haven for criminals. Depoliticizing cooperation on such issues is a practical necessity for all
countries; practical and professional cooperation in these areas can then set the foundations
for tougher discussions on politics.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
65
Cuba Aff
Advantage – Oil Spills
WFI 13
Pre Camp
66
Cuba Aff
Oil Spills – Inherency – Spills Likely Now
Cuba is on the verge of deepwater oil drilling – making an a short-term
environmental catastrophe a likelyhood
Mahony 10 (Melisa, "An offshore Cuban oil crisis," Smartplanet, October 1,
http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/a-offshore-cuban-oilcrisis/2944/)
Cuba could be drilling for oil off its shores for the first time, as soon as next year. Spanish
company Repsol plans to drill exploratory wells in waters 5,600 feet deep about 22 miles off
Havana. Not surprisingly, American companies—still awaiting the BP blowout-inspired ban on offshore drilling to lift on
November 30—want in. But the 1960s trade embargo with the communist state won’t allow it. According to McClatchy Newspapers,
any ship or rig comprised of more than 10 percent U.S. parts can’t operate in Cuba. (Repsol will use an Italian rig equipped with an
American-made blowout preventer only.) In the face of the embargo and possibly in the hopes of easing it, companies
say
they at least want to be able to help. You know, just in case Cuba experiences an offshore oil
incident similar to our Gulf disaster. As rookies, Cuba lacks submersible robots, drilling
platforms and other forms of deepwater clean-up capacity. Even with the experience and this technology
(and some golf balls?), the U.S. took about 5 months to plug BP’s well. And the area where Repsol will be drilling is about 60 miles
from the Florida Keys. Should
a spill occur there, marine scientists have been reported estimating
that oil could reach Florida within 3 days, and possibly get swept into the Gulf Stream. The New
York Times: The prospect of an accident is emboldening American drilling companies, backed by some critics of the embargo, to seek
permission from the United States government to participate in Cuba’s nascent industry, even if only to protect against an accident.
[....] Any opening could provide a convenient wedge for big American oil companies that have quietly lobbied Congress for years to
allow them to bid for oil and natural gas deposits in waters off Cuba. Representatives of Exxon Mobil and Valero Energy attended an
energy conference on Cuba in Mexico City in 2006, where they met Cuban oil officials. Cuba, like many Caribbean islands, currently
relies heavily on oil imports from Venezuela. After April’s Gulf spill, the government office that enforces foreign economic sanctions
said licenses for American companies to aid Cuba’s offshore efforts could be granted in emergency situations. To put it mildly, the
sentiments surrounding this issue—offshore drilling, communism, environment, employment, economic sanctions, humanitarian
efforts—run deep. But whatever the political implications, Cuba
drilling commences.
needs a rapid response spill plan before any
WFI 13
Pre Camp
67
Cuba Aff
Oil Spills – Solvency – Relations Solve Environment
Even if no oil spill occurs – normalizing relations with Cuba is key to
encouraging global environmental sustainability
Council on Hemispheric Affairs 9
("The US and Cuba: an Environmental Duo," Scoop World, June 15,
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0906/S00198.htm)
•Cuba’s abundant natural resources need to be protected with heightened vigilance •Lifting
the trade embargo would open up the possibility for a constructive partnership between Cuba
and the U.S. by developing compatible and sustainable environmental policies •With the
support of the U.S., Cuba could become a model for sustainable preservation and
environmental protection on a global scale Through accidents of geography and history, Cuba is a priceless
ecological resource. The United States should capitalize on its proximity to this resource-rich
island nation by Smoving to normalize relations and establishing a framework for
environmental cooperation and joint initiatives throughout the Americas. Cuba is the most biologically
diverse of all the Caribbean Islands. Since it lies just 90 miles south of the Florida Keys, where
the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico intersect, the U.S. could play a key role in environmental
conservation as well as the region in general. However, when it comes to environmental preservation, the Obama administration is
obstructing progress and hindering any meaningful cooperation with its current U.S.- Cuba policy. Climate change and
environmental degradation are two of the most pressing contemporary issues. If President
Obama is sincerely
committed to environmental sustainability, he must forge international partnerships to
implement this objective. Where better to begin than in the U.S.’s own backyard, where Cuba
has a huge presence. Only then can Cuba and the United States move forward to find joint
solutions to environmental challenges. Environmental Riches and Implications Cuba’s glittering white sand beaches,
extensive coral reefs, endemic fauna and diverse populations of fish compose the Caribbean’s most biologically diverse island. Based
on a per hectare sampling when compared to the U.S. plus Canada,
Cuba has 12 times more mammal species, 29
times as many amphibian and reptile species, 39 times more bird species, and 27 times as
many vascular plant species. Equally important, adjacent ocean currents and the island nation’s
close proximity, carry fish larvae into U.S. waters, making protection of Cuba’s coastal
ecosystems vital to replenishing the U.S.’s ailing fisheries. Therefore, preserving the marine
resources of Cuba is critical to the economic health of North America’s Atlantic coastal communities. The U.S.
and Cuba also share an ancient deepwater coral system that stretches up to North Carolina. The island’s 4,200 islets and keys
support important commercial reef fish species such as snapper and grouper as well as other marine life including sea turtles,
dolphins and manatees in both countries. Fifty
percent of its flora and 41 percent of its fauna are endemic,
signifying the importance of protecting the island’s resources in order to safeguard the
paradisiacal vision that Christopher Columbus observed when landing on the island in 1492. Oro Negro and Dinero The recent
discovery of oil and natural gas reserves in the Florida straits in Cuban waters has attracted foreign oil exploration from China and
India, both eager to begin extraction. Offshore oil and gas development could threaten Cuba’s and Florida’s environmental riches.
Together, Cuba
and the U.S. can develop policies to combat the negative results coming from the
exploitation of these resources. The increased extraction and refining of oil in Cuba could have
detrimental effects on the environment. Offshore drilling is likely to increase with the discovery of petroleum
deposits in the Bay of Cárdenas and related areas. Excavation increases the possibility of oil spills, which
would in turn destroy the surrounding ecosystem, including fisheries and coral reef
formations. The amount of pollutants released into the air from refining crude oil and the amount of wayward oil residuals
would also increase with drilling and extraction. Those conversant with the very sensitive habitat issues are calling for immediate
consultations aimed at anticipating what should be done. However the U.S.’s enormous oil usage and its development requirements
will cultivate economic growth on the island. Washington
must work with Cuba to create an ecological
protection plan not only to establish an environmentally friendly public image, but to make it
a reality as well. Degradation of the environment will deprive Cuba, in the long run, of one of its most important sources of
WFI 13
Pre Camp
68
Cuba Aff
present and future revenue: tourism. Consequently, it is in the mutual interests of the U.S. and Cuba to develop a cooperative
relationship that will foster tourism and growth in a sustainable manner. Sustainability through Collaboration In many parts of the
country communism has inadequately acted as a seal to preserve elements of Cuba’s past as the centralized government prohibited
private development by not giving special permission. A number of tourist resorts already dot the island, but Cuba has been largely
exempt from mass tourist exploitation due to frozen relations with the U.S. Although the island remains underdeveloped, Fidel
Castro has used his unchecked power to back policies, which have been heedless to environmental considerations, thus damaging
some of the island’s pristine ecosystem that once defined the island. Roughly the size of Pennsylvania, Cuba is the largest Caribbean
island, and
if preservation and conservation measures are planned and carried out in a
cognizant manner, it could become a paradigm for sustainable development at the global
level. The Obama administration’s recent easing of travel restrictions on Cuban Americans visiting relatives on the island could be
of immense importance not only to Cuban families, but also to the preservation of Cuba’s unique and increasingly threatened
coastal and marine environments. Such a concession on Washington’s part would mark a small, but still significant stride in U.S.Cuba relations, yet the travel restrictions still remain inherently discriminatory. The preposterous regulations that allow only a
certain category of Americans into Cuba signify only a meager shift in U.S. policy towards Cuba. The 50-year-old U.S. embargo
against the island has resoundingly failed to achieve its purpose. Obama’s
modifications fall short of what it will
take to reestablish a constructive U.S.-Cuba relationship. Cuba’s tropical forests, soils, and maritime areas
have suffered degradation as a result of harmful policies stemming from a Soviet-style economic system. Cuba’s economy could be
reinvigorated through expanded tourism, development initiatives and an expansion of commodity exports, including sugarcane for
ethanol. U.S. policy toward Cuba should encourage environmental factors, thereby strengthening U.S. credibility throughout the
hemisphere. An
environmental partnership between the U.S. and Cuba is not only possible, but
could result in development models that could serve as an example for environmental
strategies throughout the Americas. The U.S. has the economic resources necessary to aid
Cuba in developing effective policy, while the island provides the space where sustainable
systems can be implemented initially instead of being applied after the fact. Cuba’s extreme
lack of development provides an unspoiled arena for the execution of exemplary sustainable
environmental protection practices. Waste Not, Want Not Although the government of Cuba has established statebased agencies to develop sustainable environmental practices, the island’s resources are left to be used at the government’s
discretion. It is estimated that throughout Cuba, about 113.5 billion gallons of water contaminated with agricultural, industrial and
urban wastes are dumped into the sea annually and more than 3.27 billion gallons find their way into its rivers. As direct dumping of
untreated industrial waste into rivers, aquifers, and the sea is the norm, Cuban scientists estimate that this volume of industrial
liquid waste pollutes roughly 486 gallons of clean water per year. The majority of this contamination stems from four industries, all
state owned and operated, nickel excavation, sugar refineries, oil refineries, and rice farms. A 1994 Cuban press release disclosed
that the Soto Alba nickel plant on the Moa Bay dumped more than 3.17 billion gallons of untreated liquid waste into the sea every
day. The waste contained 72 tons of aluminum, 48 tons of chromium, 15 tons of magnesium, and 30 tons of sulfuric acid. By way of
comparison, the treatment standards for wastewater in the U.S. limit the concentration of chromium to a maximum of 0.32
milligrams per liter, 12 times less than the daily dumping into the Moa Bay by only one of the three nickel plants operating in the
area. In the sugar industry, more than 15.85 billion gallons of liquid waste are dumped into caves by the 151 operating sugar mills on
the island creating the most enduring environmental problem. These alarming figures highlight the precipitous position of Cuba’s
environment. While Cuban citizens increasingly are aware of the importance of environmental conservation, the government
continues to exploit the island’s resources for state use without hindrance of being environmentally sound. Environmentalists
maintain that the Cuban government must take responsibility for enforcing the environmental laws it has enacted and agreements it
has signed. For Cubans and foreigners alike, the beaches of Cuba constitute the principle tourist attraction in the country, but even
these have not escaped wasteful government exploitation. The famous beaches east of Havana have been the victims of sand
removal for use by the Cuban government in the construction industry. In addition to coastal destruction, like many of its Caribbean
neighbors, Cuba faces deforestation, over-cultivation of land and compaction of soils due to the use of heavy farm machinery and
strip mining. These practices have resulted in high salinity in soils and heavy land erosion. Furthermore, poor water quality in
freshwater streams has affected the wildlife habitat, which is in turn influenced by runoff from agricultural practices, erosion due to
deforestation, and sedimentation of freshwater streams. Cuba must act in a responsible manner to stop environmental degradation
and preserve its tourist industry as an early step to salvage its inert economy. Beginning Concerns The environmental degradation
that began during the colonial era has transcended time as a result of Castro’s political and economic paradigm. Only in the last 40
years, with the development of the Commission for the Protection of the Environment and the Conservation of Natural Resources
(COMARNA), has Cuba begun to address growing environmental concerns. COMARNA consolidated all of the agencies with
environmental responsibilities, as a step towards giving them the power to influence all environmental issues. Although COMARNA
was all-inclusive, it lacked independent authority, so its activities achieved few tangible results. The sad fact was that the centralized
agency only succeeded in aiding the state in squandering resources. In reality, establishing the agency was a modest concession to
ease environmental concerns, but the truth lingered that Cuba’s wealth of natural resources remained under the auspices of the
government. COMARNA acknowledged the appeals for conservation by the international community, yet it allowed for the misuse of
natural resources by the State. By way of example, the centralized Cuban agency built thousands of miles of roads for the
development of non-existent state agricultural enterprises and dams where there was hardly any water to contain. In 1981, Cuba
enacted Law 33 in an attempt to legitimize their environmental laws and regulations, yet Law 33 played only a miniscule role in
guiding the extraction of natural resources and the conservation of ecological life on the island. Lauded as a law ahead of its time,
WFI 13
Pre Camp
69
Cuba Aff
Law 33 purportedly covers all the regulations concerning the environment and the protection and use of Cuban national resources,
even though it produced few results. The statute includes a section comparing the “wise use of natural resources by communist
countries versus the indiscriminate use of natural resources by the capitalistic world.” In this regard, the document is more a piece
of political propaganda than a law meant to be rigorously enforced. Moreover it palls in comparison to international environmental
protection guidelines and has relatively limited significance within the country since the Cuban government is responsible for the
operation of the bulk of the industries and is therefore the principal polluter and consumer of natural resources. Thus Law 33
exonerates the Cuban government from enforcing stricter conservation standards by making a system that looks efficient, but in
reality may not be so. A closer analysis on Law 33 exposes its inherent lack of efficacy and applicability. Attempts to Move Forward
In 1994, Cuba developed the Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment (CITMA) in order to absorb the tasks of the
unproductive COMARNA. CITMA attempts to steer the implementation of environmental policy, the rational use of natural
resources, and the adoption of sustainable development programs. Law 81 developed out of the necessity to give the Ministry a
more sharply defined role in the government by replacing the outdated Law 33. Law 81, the Law of the Environment, was enacted in
1997 and presents a comprehensive framework law that covers all aspects of the environment ranging from air, water and waste, to
historic preservation and coastal zone management. Although it details inspections and an enforcement plan, the law is ultimately
ineffective due to its overarching nature, which makes it difficult to enforce. Law 81 may replace a necessary revision of Law 33;
however, it remains vague in its enforcement procedures. For example, Law 81, Article 81 states that national resources will be used
in accordance with the provisions that “their rational use will be assured, for which their quantitative and qualitative continuity will
be preserved, recycling and recovery systems will be developed, and the ecosystems to which they belong safeguarded.” This
portion of the provision elucidates the ambiguous nature of the law, as it continues to delineate objectives without coming up with
specific implementation strategies. In 1997, the Earth Summit, a conference sponsored by the United Nations aimed at aiding
governments in rethinking economic development and finding ways to halt the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources and
pollution of the planet was held in New York. At the Summit, Cuban officials were refreshingly blunt in acknowledging the
environmental degradation present on their island. In a pamphlet distributed at the conference, the Havana government stated that
“there have been mistakes and shortcomings, due mainly to insufficient environmental awareness, knowledge and education, the
lack of a higher management demand, limited introduction and generalization of scientific and technological achievements, as well
as the still insufficient incorporation of environmental dimensions in its policies. The authorities also pointed to the insufficient
development plans and programs and the absence of a sufficiently integrative and coherent judicial system,” to enforce
environmental regulations. After the Earth Summit, Cuba designed and implemented a variety of programs, administrative
structures, and public awareness initiatives to promote sound environmental management and sustainable development. Although
the conference spurred motivation in environmental matters, Cuba still lacked the economic resources needed to support its share
of environmental protection responsibilities due to the loss of its financial ties with the former Soviet Union. The Earth Summit came
after the fall of the Soviet Union and the tightening of the U.S. blockade against Cuba in 1992, which resulted in a 35% retrenchment
of the Cuban GDP. The Special Period, referring to the cut off of economic subsidies that had regularly come from the former Soviet
Union, witnessed a decrease in many environmentally damaging activities both by choice and by necessity. The end of aid from the
Russia also resulted in many decisions aimed at resuscitating the Cuban economy. The economic crisis increased pressure to sacrifice
environmental protection for economic output. Although development slowed due to economic concerns, the island’s forests were
particularly overworked for firewood and finished wood exports. However, the crisis also provided the impetus for pursuing
sustainable development strategies. The principle motivating such change has been a realization that if Cuba does not preserve its
environment, it will, at the very least, lose its attraction to tourists. Diverging Views Unlike the U.S., which still has never ratified the
Kyoto Protocol, Cuba signed the document in 1997, which calls for the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the global climate system. This legally binding international
agreement attempts to tackle the issue of global warming and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S., although a
signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is merely symbolic, as the
Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified. Although in 2005 the United States was the largest per capita
emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, it experienced only a modest decline of 2.8 percent from 2007 to 2008.
This decline demonstrates that the U.S. has the framework to reverse Cuba’s substandard
environmental track record. By aiding Havana, Washington would be able to brand itself as an
active conservationist. Such a label would enable the U.S. to create a valuable ecological
public image in the international arena. The developmental assistance and economic growth potential that might
stem from a U.S.-Cuba partnership might aid in developing enforceable implementation strategies. Even though Cuba’s written
regulations characteristically lack feasible, implementable standards. Cuban laws, currently in effect, do provide a foundation for
greater conservation activity in the future. The Cuban government does show an interest in encouraging sustainable development
initiatives in the future, yet its laws are all based on maintaining a centralized government featuring a command economy. For
example, CITMA appears to be trying to affect change, but many aspects of Cuba’s bureaucracy are rooted in the past and it remains
difficult to update the ways of an outdated administrative substructure. If the embargo is lifted without a robust partnership and
plans for environmental sustainability, the invasion of U.S. consumerism may seriously damage the island. Fear of “Cancunization”
Many Cuba well-wishers fear if President Obama lifts the trade embargo, the invasion of raw capitalism could destroy Cuba’s
relatively pristine environment. Although the Cuban government points to its environmental laws and the government agency which
was established to develop a sustainable environmental policy, these measures have done little up to now to affect substantial
change. In several distinct sectors, Cuba seems to remain unprepared for the lifting of the embargo and the island inevitably could
face a flood of investors from the United States and elsewhere, eager to exploit the beautiful landscapes of the island, at great cost
and risk. After years of relying on government subsidies and protectionism, this rapid growth could generate irreparable shock
waves through the economy. Oliver Houck, a professor at Tulane University who aided the Cuban government in writing its
environmental protection provisions, said “an invasion of U.S. consumerism, a U.S.-dominated future, could roll over it (Cuba) like a
WFI 13
Pre Camp
70
Cuba Aff
bulldozer,” when the embargo ends. The wider Caribbean region has experienced water contamination, mangrove destruction and
sewage problems due to large quantities of tourists and inadequate plumbing. Therefore, U.S. tourism regulations need to be in
place in order to protect the precious ecosystem of the island and prohibit over development. Collaboration between the U.S. and
Cuba would be mutually beneficial, as the U.S. could use Cuba as a laboratory of sustainable development and U.S. tourism would
stimulate Cuba’s stagnant economy, if its negative impact could be controlled. Both countries must agree upon a mutual plan for
development. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has conducted research in Cuba since 2000, working with Cuban partners on
scientific investigations and strategies for protecting coastal and marine resources. Operating under a special license from the
United States government, EDF experts are collaborating with Cuban scientists on research projects aimed at ensuring that if Cuba
taps offshore oil and gas reserves, it will be done in an environmentally concious way. The US should establish more partnerships
like these as President Obama has the legal authority to institute far-reaching cooperation with Cuba on joint marine environmental
projects. These partnerships should be implemented as the first step in creating an elaborate alliance for environmental protection
between the two countries. If the embargo is lifted, symbols of meretricious American capitalism are likely to invade the once
relatively isolated island. Opinion columnist Cynthia Tucker has commented on such matters: “Mickey Mouse is sure to arrive,
bringing with him the aptly predicted full frontal assault of American culture and consumer goods,” suggesting that if Obama lifts the
embargo, a functioning system of environmental protection supported by both the U.S. and the Cuban public must be present for
the island to be protected. It is Cuba’s lack of development that makes the island attractive to tourists and although tourism boosts
the economy, it also could have detrimental effects on the environment. If the embargo is lifted, strict development restrictions
need to be in place in order to prevent further environmental exploitation. Currently, without a severe shift in enforcement of
environmental laws and the formation of a hard-working U.S.-Cuba partnership, the Caribbean’s most biodiverse island will continue
to be damaged. The
key to a new dynamic in the U.S.-Cuba relationship might be to embark on a
series of strategic actions that aim to establish a bilateral relationship for sustainable
development and associated activities based on mutual respect and the autonomy of each
country’s sovereignty and traditions.
Relations set a precedent for environmental co-operation globally
Gage 10
(Julienne, "Cuban, US Scientists Work Toward a Better Gulf," Discovery News, October 15,
http://news.discovery.com/earth/cuba-united-states-gulf-science.html)
* Because of a lack of tourism prompted by the U.S.-Cuba trade embargo, reefs in Cuba are much less damaged than their Florida
* The environment has offered a promising source of study for scientists. * The
United States and Cuba cut off diplomatic relations and most travel 50 years ago, which makes
such collaboration tricky. Since 1962, the United States' embargo against communist Cuba has drastically limited travel
counterparts.
and collaboration with the island. Click to enlarge this image. With 3,000 monitors floating through the world's oceans at once,
scientists are getting a flood of information about our seas. Discovery News' James Williams dives into the story. It’s been five
decades since the United States cut off ties to communist Cuba, ultimately limiting communication, trade, and travel to some
research and humanitarian assistance. Ironically, that isolation helped to protect the island’s pristine ocean ecosystem, making it an
ideal place for scientists to study marine restoration and conservation. Under exemptions to the 1962 U.S. embargo against Cuba,
David Guggenheim, a Senior Fellow at Washington, D.C.’s Ocean Foundation, has made more than 50 trips there since 2000. He says
Florida’s reefs once mirrored Cuba’s, but were damaged by decades of sediment and fertilizer from large-scale construction and
farming. “If Columbus were
a scuba diver, he’d still recognize this beautiful place … . it’s the way
an ecosystem should look,” Guggenheim said. The island’s tourism was scarce between the 1959 revolution that brought
Fidel Castro to power and the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba’s main economic backer. To save itself from financial ruin,
Cuba built it up, luring Europeans hungry for tropical vacations. Still, that industry is small compared to what it would be if American
tourists could visit. These
unique circumstances allow scientists from across the globe a chance to
explore more cohesive international marine policies and practices, and nowhere is that more evident than
in the Gulf of Mexico. For example, Mexican and U.S. scientists are examining how Cuban corals could be
transplanted to their diminished coasts. Those reefs offer vital habitat to fish and sea turtles
roaming freely through Gulf waters. The Obama administration has increased U.S. visas to Cuban researchers, but
scientists on both shores say the embargo still hinders the extent of collaboration. “Half the effort is figuring out licensing and
(political) sensitivities,” said Frank Muller-Karger, an oceangrapher at University of South Florida’s College of Marine Science in
Tampa. U.S. law won’t allow American researchers to bring in high-tech equipment because the U.S. government contends it could
be used for terrorism. American scientists can hire local Cubans for purposes of their visit, but not for ongoing investigations.
Current efforts underscore the potential for scientific advancement, especially in light of the historic Gulf
oil spill. Last month, about 60 Cuban, Mexican, and American scientists gathered for the fourth annual Trinational Initiative at the
MOTE Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Fla. The conference, organized by Guggenheim, helps all three countries streamline Gulf
conservation efforts. At this one, participants pooled their data to develop a five-to-10-year plan. “The value of this network is that
we’re able to mobilize quickly,” noted Guggenheim. Indeed, after the Gulf oil spill, he and his colleagues bridged communications
among the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA and the Cuban government. That may come in handy when Cuba
WFI 13
Pre Camp
71
Cuba Aff
begins offshore oil exploration next year. Consuelo Aguilar, a lead researcher at University of Havana’s Center for Marine
Investigations, and a longtime collaborator of Guggenheim, is one of 17 Cuban scientists who received a visa for the Trinational
Initiative conference. She
says U.S. collaboration is vital for Cubans struggling to reap the benefits of
their free university studies. “We Cubans are well-educated, but we don’t always have the
resources we need to carry out full investigations. For example, we haven’t completed an
exhaustive study on sharks since the 1960s. Our American colleagues have. That’s important
because these sharks are top predators that control the order of marine life, and they’re in
decline.” Thanks to Guggenheim’s work with Cubans like Aguilar, some 20 marine biology masters and doctoral students in
Havana have field projects. In addition to offering an optimal marine study environment, Aguilar
affirms her people can show American researchers how to persevere in tough economic times.
“Our best resource is humans. We’re creative and able to get things done with practically no
tools,” she said, adding that her marine center often teaches school children about ecology so that they will be prepared to
protect it.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
72
Cuba Aff
Oil Spills – Solvency – Lifting Embargo Solves Spills
Lifting Embargo solves damage from Oil Spills
Fesler, 2009
[Lily, Research Associate The council on hemispheric relations, Cuban Oil: Havana's Potential
Geo-Political Bombshell, Washington Report on the Hemisphere29. 11. (Jun 18, 2009), Accessed
online via Proquest] Wyo-MB
Some are concerned about the possible en- vironmental costs of drilling. Florida Senator Bill
Nelson has warned that "an oil spill or other drilling accident would desecrate part of Florida's unique environ- ment and possibly dev- astate its $50 billion tourism-driven economy."
The best way to ensure that such an event does not occur would be for the U.S. itself to take
part in, or monitor the extraction process. The problem is that Washington has no power over
Havana's extractive practices as long as Cuba is drilling only within its own territorial waters,
so cooperation and joint projects would be the best way to promote the safety of the drilling
process. U.S. oil companies can be expected to take part in the excavation process as soon as
the outdated embargo is superseded.¶ The Ob ama administration has said its recent modest
opening of relations with Cuba was intended to "extend a hand to the Cuban people, in support
of their desire to determine their own future." If Washington truly wants to help, normalization
of relations could lead to immediate improvements in the dismal economic situation on the
island. Cuba has received over 1 15,000 barrels a day of generously subsidized oil from
Venezuela in 2008, and that number has since increased. Otherwise unable to afford oil, Havana
profoundly needs this discount along with the docto rs-for-oil swap; this points out Cuba's
inability to avoid its past mistakes and history. The disastrous economic fallout in Cuba after the
collapse of the Soviet Union, and the consequent sudden loss of over $5 billion worth of yearly
subsidies, should have taught Havana to be wary of overdependence on other countries'
generosity. Havana's relationship with Caracas proves otherwise: Hugo Chavez yearly provides
the Castros with well over an estimated $2 billion worth of oil subsidies each year.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
73
Cuba Aff
Oil Spills – Internal Link – Global Spread
That spills over globally
Kozloff 10 (Nikolas, "Left Must Fine Tune its Position on Cuba Embargo in Light of Oil Spill,"
Mongabay, May 26, http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0526-kozloff_cuba.html)
Castro is right on the money in his criticisms. However, the fact is that Cuba, just like Venezuela, is also in thrall to
unsustainable oil which places the Gulf of Mexico in environmental peril. Heavily energy dependent on
other countries, Cuba has unfortunately sought to lure foreign investment to develop offshore oil
deposits. Such investment could add to the region’s already worrying ecological profile. At this
point, the last thing the region needs is more offshore oil operations going up just 50 miles off the Florida coast. Currently, Cuba
produces approximately half its energy needs from onshore wells while receiving the remainder from Venezuela at favorable prices.
Naturally, Cuba would like to develop more energy sovereignty and sees offshore development as crucial towards that effort.
Indeed, according to a recent report issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (E.I.A.), "there has been considerable
interest in exploration activities in Cuba's offshore basins, especially in the Gulf of Mexico." Cuba’s
authorities estimate
that its offshore basins could contain more than 20 billion barrels of undiscovered reserves ,
though that figure is somewhat disputed. The deposits are reportedly located in Cuba’s part of the Gulf of
Mexico, which abuts the U.S. and Mexican areas of the gulf. "However," remarks the E.I.A. report, "actual
exploratory drilling in the area has been, to date, quite limited." That scenario looks likely to change. Just this month, Reuters
reported that Spanish oil giant Repsol YPF had contracted an Italian firm to construct an oil rig which could be bound for Cuban
offshore oil operations. Back in 2004, Repsol drilled the only exploration well in Cuban waters and subsequently declared that it had
found hydrocarbons. Later, other foreign oil companies joined the fray with Norwegian Statoil and a unit of India’s Oil and Natural
Gas Corp establishing a partnership with Repsol. Ever since that first well was drilled, the oil industry has been chafing at the bit to
enter Cuban waters full force. Reportedly, Repsol is moving ahead at long last towards drilling a second and maybe even a third
exploration well. The work could start as early as the fall, and one source close to the project told Reuters "Things are moving
forward, there will be no more delays." If Repsol
drills that second well it could unleash an ominous
Pandora’s Box. In the event the company is successful, Reuters writes that it "will open the door to full-scale
exploitation of Cuba's offshore." Already, Cuba’s section of the Gulf of Mexico has been divided up into 59 blocks and
17 of those have been leased to Repsol and its partners. One of those partners is Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PdVSA.
President Hugo Chávez says he is horrified by BP’s mess and recently declared he would send oil experts to Cuba to advise the island
nation on how best to handle the spill. "This is very, very bad," Chávez said. On the other hand, Venezuela hardly inspires
confidence: earlier this month the country had its own rig accident when a natural gas exploration rig leased by PdVSA nearly sank.
Hopefully, the BP disaster will lead Cuba to permanently and irrevocably shelve its plans for offshore oil development. Yet, in order
to do so the island nation will have to drastically reverse course from the past few years. In addition to Venezuela, Norway and India
there are other significant players who have inked offshore oil agreements including big Russian and Brazilian energy companies. In
the event that Cuba fails to heed the warning of the BP spill and goes ahead with offshore oil exploration in the long-term, it could
be years before new wells are developed and significant oil is recovered. Simply put, the
island nation lacks needed oil
infrastructure, technology and skilled labor. That could be a boon to the environment, but don’t count Cuba out
just yet: the authorities are already planning a deep sea terminal for supertankers in the
northern port of Matanzas and seek to upgrade a long pipeline which stretches across the
island to an old, Soviet-built refinery. From an environmental point of view, the prospect of offshore oil
development going forward is not something to be taken lightly. Cuba is the most biologically
diverse of all Caribbean islands and sports spectacular white sand beaches, vast coral reefs,
and a wide range of fish populations. Cuba’s coastline and mangroves serve as breeding
grounds for hundreds of species of fish as well as other marine organisms. Ocean currents
carry important fish larvae from Cuba into U.S. waters, which in turn help to replenish ailing American
fisheries. The U.S. and Cuba share an ancient deepwater coral system stretching all the way up to
North Carolina. In addition, Cuba has more than 4,000 islets which support important reef fish
such as grouper. The islets also support sea turtles, dolphins and manatees [the latter already in
danger as a result of BP’s oil spill as I recently pointed out]. Crucially important, the islets serve as refuges for
endangered species. If that was not enough reason to press the pause button on offshore oil, consider the plight of
Caribbean birds. In recent days, the U.S. public has been subjected to the tragic spectacle of oiled pelicans in the Gulf. If oil
WFI 13
Pre Camp
74
Cuba Aff
production reaches Cuba we could have further disasters since important populations of
North American migratory birds spend much of the year on the Caribbean island.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
75
Cuba Aff
Oil Spills – Impact – Key Biodiversity Hot Spot
Cuba is a critical biodiversity hot spot
Brookings Institute 9 ("A New Era for US-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal REsources
Conservation," April 28,
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/0428_cuba_environment.aspx)
Cuba sits at the convergence of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Its
coastal waters are dense with islets, keys and reefs that provide critical habitats and spawning
grounds for a rich array of fish, endangered sea turtles, manatees and other marine life.
Preserving Cuba’s biodiversity is critically important to the natural resources and economies
of coastal communities in the United States and other neighboring countries.
Active scientific and management cooperation is needed to address the growing threats to
Cuba’s biodiversity including coral reefs, migratory bird habitats, marine mammals and turtles,
and biodiversity shared throughout the region. Greater communication and collaboration
among scientists, conservation professionals and government agencies could benefit both the
United States and Cuba, as well as the shared ecosystems that link both nations.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
76
Cuba Aff
Oil Spills – Impact – Biodiversity
Biodiversity loss leads to extinction
Diner gender paraphrased 94
Military Law Review Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161 LENGTH: 30655 words ARTICLE: THE ARMY
AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: WHO'S ENDANGERING WHOM? NAME: MAJOR DAVID N.
DINER BIO: Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army.
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling
narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse
systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike
a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist
collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks
down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified
many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The
spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States
are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could
cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of
disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80
[hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
77
Cuba Aff
AT: Health Care Disad
WFI 13
Pre Camp
78
Cuba Aff
Health Care DA – 2AC
NO IMPACT – Cuban Health care cannot solve disease
National Review 7/30/2007 “The Myth of Cuban Health Care”
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/health-myth.htm
To be sure, there is excellent health care on Cuba — just not for ordinary Cubans. Dr. Jaime Suchlicki of
the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies explains that there is not just one system, or
even two: There are three. The first is for foreigners who come to Cuba specifically for medical care. This is known
as “medical tourism.” The tourists pay in hard currency, which provides oxygen to the regime. And the facilities in which
they are treated are First World: clean, well supplied, state-of-the-art.
The foreigners-only facilities do a big business in what you might call vanity treatments: Botox, liposuction, and breast
implants. Remember, too, that there are many separate, or segregated, facilities on Cuba. People speak of “tourism
apartheid.” For example, there are separate hotels, separate beaches, separate restaurants — separate everything. As you can well
imagine, this causes widespread resentment in the general population.
The second health-care system is for Cuban elites — the Party, the military, official artists and writers, and so on.
In the Soviet Union, these people were called the “nomenklatura.” And their system, like the one for medical
tourists, is top-notch.
Then there is the real Cuban system, the one that ordinary people must use — and it is
wretched. Testimony and documentation on the subject are vast. Hospitals and clinics are crumbling.
Conditions are so unsanitary, patients may be better off at home, whatever home is. If they do have
to go to the hospital, they must bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs —
even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce. In Sicko, even sophisticated medications are plentiful and
cheap. In the real Cuba, finding an aspirin can be a chore. And an antibiotic will fetch a fortune on
the black market.
A nurse spoke to Isabel Vincent of Canada’s National Post. “We have nothing,” said the nurse. “I
haven’t seen aspirin in a Cuban store here for more than a year. If you have any pills in your purse, I’ll take
them. Even if they have passed their expiry date.”
The equipment that doctors have to work with is either antiquated or nonexistent. Doctors
have been known to reuse latex gloves — there is no choice. When they travel to the island, on errands of
mercy, American doctors make sure to take as much equipment and as many supplies as they can carry. One told the Associated
Press, “The [Cuban] doctors are pretty well trained, but they have nothing to work with. It’s like
operating with knives and spoons.”
And doctors are not necessarily privileged citizens in Cuba. A doctor in exile told the Miami Herald that, in 2003, he earned what
most doctors did: 575 pesos a month, or about 25 dollars. He had to sell pork out of his home to get by. And the chief of medical
services for the whole of the Cuban military had to rent out his car as a taxi on weekends. “Everyone tries to survive,” he explained.
(Of course, you can call a Cuban with a car privileged, whatever he does with it.)
So deplorable is the state of health care in Cuba that old-fashioned diseases are back with a
vengeance. These include tuberculosis, leprosy, and typhoid fever. And dengue, another fever, is a
particular menace. Indeed, an exiled doctor named Dessy Mendoza Rivero — a former political prisoner and a spectacularly brave
man — wrote a book called ¡Dengue! La Epidemia Secreta de Fidel Castro.
NOT UNIQUE - Cuban health care is struggling – the economy and the embargo
The Economist 7/14/2012 “Cuban Health Care: Under Investigation”
http://www.economist.com/node/21558613
Until recently, Cubans were justifiably proud of their health-care system. Life-expectancy matches that
of Americans, who are eight times richer. Infant mortality ties with Canada’s as the lowest in the Americas. Measles jabs have been
near-universal for more than 20 years, putting Cuba ahead of many rich countries.
But Cuba’s crumbling economy has put this system under stress. Though the state still trains armies of
doctors, a third of these are deployed overseas in “soft-power” missions. Pharmacies are generally ill-stocked. In
many hospitals patients must provide their own sheets, food and dressings. Neglect of
WFI 13
Pre Camp
79
Cuba Aff
infrastructure means that almost 10% of the population lacks access to clean drinking water.
The American embargo against the island does not help: equipment for radiology,
mammograms and cancer therapy is hard to replace, says Julia Sweig of the Council on Foreign Relations, an
American think-tank.
Raúl Castro, the president, who this month visited China and Vietnam, is trying to revive the economy by cautiously transferring
chunks of it into private hands. The next step, reported this week, will be to let transport and other service workers form cooperatives, currently restricted to farming. If
the health service is to thrive again, this sort of economic surgery
will need to speed up.
NOT UNIQUE - Health care declining – supplies & staff
The Economist 3/24/2012 “The deal's off; Inequality” page proquest
And now health services and education are becoming harder to access and getting worse. Secondaryschool enrolment is below its 1989 peak. There is a surfeit of humanities graduates and a shortage of agronomists and engineers.
Although infant mortality has continued to fall, maternal mortality has risen. Many drugs are
in short supply. Hospital patients sometimes have to bring their own sheets. There are reports of doctors
starting to demand payment. On a weekday morning in a village in the inappropriately named municipality of La Salud ("health"),
south of the capital, this correspondent came across an elderly woman who had hurt her arm and was whimpering with pain, having
found no doctors in attendance at two health clinics.
In 2010, 37,000 Cuban doctors and other health workers were working in 77 countries around the world, mostly in Venezuela but
also in Africa, the Caribbean and Central America. The Cuban government also offers scholarships to 20,000 Latin Americans to study
medicine--all part of its obsessive search for international prestige. But the
main reason for the shortage of
medical staff is low salaries. A woman who gave her name as Grisel says she worked as a family doctor for just $23 a
month, but now earns $40 a month in an improvised craft shop in Havana. She has two small children. A pair of children's shoes
costs $13. As a doctor "I faced a choice of buying shoes or eating."
LINK TURN - Embargo restricts Cuba from access to necessary medicines and
tech
Xinhua News 11/28/2012 “Cuban healthcare weakended by U.S. embargo”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/health/2012-11/28/c_132004531.htm
HAVANA, Nov. 27 (Xinhua) -- Cuban medical authorities said on Tuesday a 50-year trade embargo imposed
by the United States has severely undermined the country's healthcare system.
Cuban hospitals suffer restrictions in acquiring imported medical consumables and medicine,
advanced medical technology and latest scientific information, officials said.
The public Institute of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery, where thousands of people
receive free medical care every year from international specialists, is financially strained by the embargo.
"We must find alternatives that sometimes include purchasing from distant markets, buying from third parties, which
means higher prices for these products," said Director of the institute Dr. Lorenzo Llerena.
He added some equipments were simply unattainable, "because they are manufactured in the
United States."
The embargo has caused Cuba a loss of more than 200 million dollars in the medical sector
alone by 2011, representing a significant impact on the tiny Caribbean nation, according to official figures.
John Rhodes, a patient, told Xinhua that Cuba had made a great effort for the benefit of all its
citizens.
"It provides us free medicine across the country, which is highly expensive around the world," he said, adding "due to the U.S.
embargo, sometimes we do not have all the raw materials and tools to solve certain problems
immediately."
WFI 13
Pre Camp
80
Cuba Aff
LINK TURN - Embargo devastates health care system – supplies & lack of
information exchange
Amnesty International 2009 “ The US Embargo Against Cuba: Its Impact on Economic and
Social Rights” http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/amr250072009eng.pdf
The negative impact of the US embargo on the Cuban health care system and on the right to health of
Cubans during the 1990s has been documented in a 1997 report by the American Association for World
Health (AAWH).45 The 300-page document is still the most comprehensive study on the issue. Based on a fact-finding mission to
Cuba, the AAWH identified that the embargo contributed particularly to malnutrition affecting
especially women and children, poor water quality, lack of access to medicines and medical supplies, and
limited the exchange of medical and scientific information due to travel restrictions and
currency regulations. The AAWH found that “a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted only because the Cuban
government has maintained a high level of budgetary support for a health care system designed to deliver primary and preventive
health care to all of its citizens… Even so, the
U.S. embargo of food and the de facto embargo on medical
supplies has wreaked havoc with the island's model primary health care system.” 46
WFI 13
Pre Camp
81
Cuba Aff
Health Care DA – N/U Ext
Health care system is crumbling – budget cuts
Associated Press 8/25/2012 “Cuba Health Care: Budget Cuts Threaten Sector” Huffington
Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/cuba-health-care_n_1832955.html
HAVANA -- Cuba's system of free medical care, long considered a birthright by its citizens and trumpeted as one of the
communist government's great successes, is not immune to cutbacks under Raul Castro's drive for efficiency.
The health sector has already endured millions of dollars in budget cuts and tens of thousands of
layoffs, and it became clear this month that Castro is looking for more ways to save when the newspaper voice of the Communist
Party, Granma, published daily details for two weeks on how much the government spends on everything from anesthetics and
acupuncture to orthodontics and organ transplants.
It's part of a wider media campaign that seems geared to discourage frivolous use of medical services, to explain or blunt fears of a
drop-off in care and to remind Cubans to be grateful that health care is still free despite persistent economic woes. But it's also
raising the eyebrows of outside analysts, who predict
further cuts or significant changes to what has been a
pillar of the socialist system implanted after the 1959 revolution.
"Very often the media has been a leading indicator of where the economic reforms are going," said Phil Peters, a longtime Cuba
observer at the Lexington Institute think tank. "My guess is that there's some kind of policy statement to follow, because that's been
the pattern."
The theme of the Granma pieces, posters in clinics and ads on state TV is the same: "Your health care is free, but how much does it
cost?"
The answer is, not much by outside standards, but quite a bit for Cuba, which spends $190 million a year paying for its citizens'
medical bills.
Based on the official exchange rate, the government spends $2 each time a Cuban visits a family doctor, $4.14 for each X-ray and
$6,827 for a heart transplant.
It's not a luxury service though. Scarcities now are common
and sanitary conditions fall short of the ideal
in decaying facilities where paint peels from the walls. Patients often bring their own bed sheets,
electric fans, food and water for hospital stays.
Cubans lack resources for necessary medicine and equipment
Global Politics 2007 “The Challenges of Health Care in Cuba” http://www.globalpolitics.co.uk/issue9/hanna/
However, challenges remain. Healthcare may be free and available for all Cuban citizens but
medication is not. Pharmacies are often very poorly stocked and rationing of supplies is
minimal. 13 There are claims that hospitals are often in poor conditions and doctors have to bring in
their own supplies and equipment to allow them to treat their patients. 10 Despite the
production of medical supplies and technology, it seems very little of this actually remains in
Cuba. Every year Cuba exports huge amounts of medical aid, mostly to other Latin American countries for
purely financial returns. 22 For example, Venezuela provides much-needed oil to Cuba and in exchange receives Cuban doctors and
medical supplies. 14
Cuba’s dual economy has a lot to do with why such disparity exists. Medication
and equipment is there and available
but only to pay for in American dollars, of which the poor and middle classes of Cuba are very
unlikely to have. 23 The ‘pesos pharmacies’ and local state hospitals are drastically understocked and thus access for the poor to needed medication is minimal, despite the service
being free.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
82
Cuba Aff
AT: Health Care DA – Link Turn Ext
Embargo prevents access to necessary tech
SurfKY News 4/15/2013 “UK Delegation Visits Cuba, Learns About its Healthcare System”
http://surfky.com/index.php/communities/303-lexington-fayette-county/29814-uk-delegationvisits-cuba-learns-about-its-healthcare-system
“Many of the problems with Cuba’s health care system are associated with the American
embargo,” Berres said. “This prevents them from having access to the latest pharmaceutical and
technological advances, so many of their facilities are very basic.”
Embargo prevents access to tech and medicine
CNN 9/02/2009 “Report: U.S. sanctions put Cubans' health at risk”
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/01/amnesty.cuba.health/
LONDON, England (CNN) -- The U.S. trade embargo on Cuba is endangering the health of millions by
limiting Cubans' access to medicines and medical technology, human rights group Amnesty International
alleged Wednesday.
An Amnesty report examines the effects of the sanctions, which have been in place since 1962. Amnesty International SecretaryGeneral Irene Khan called the U.S. embargo immoral and said it should be lifted.
"It's preventing millions of Cubans from benefiting from vital medicines and medical equipment essential for their health," Khan
said.
The embargo restricts the export of medicines and medical equipment from the U.S. and from
any U.S.-owned company abroad.
Amnesty also called on President Obama to not renew the Trading with the Enemy Act, which is due for renewal on September 14.
The Act has been reviewed by U.S. presidents on an annual basis since 1978. Amnesty said that while not renewing the Act would
not in itself end the embargo against Cuba, it would send a clear message that the U.S. is adopting a new policy toward Cuba.
In April this year President Obama lifted restrictions that had prevented U.S. citizens from visiting relatives in Cuba, and sending
them remittances.
A U.S. State Department spokeswoman would not comment on the report because she hadn't read it. However, she said, "The
president believes it makes strategic sense to hold on to some inducements we can use in dealing with a Cuban government if it
shows any signs of seeking a normalized relationship with us and begins to respect basic human rights."
The Amnesty report also cites United Nations data that says Cuba's inability to import nutritional products for schools, hospitals and
day care centers is contributing to a high prevalence of iron deficiency anemia. In 2007, the condition affected 37.5 percent of
Cuba's children under three years old, according to UNICEF.
Cuba can import these products from other countries, but there are major shipping costs and logistical challenges to contend with.
Gail Reed is international director of MEDICC (Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba), a non-profit organization that encourages
cooperation among U.S., Cuban and global health communities.
She told CNN, "In general, the embargo has a sweeping effect on
would say the people most affected have been cancer and HIV-AIDS patients."
Cuban healthcare. Over the past decades, I
She also said the embargo affects the way doctors think about the future. "Doctors
in Cuba always worry that an
international supplier will be bought out by a U.S. company, leaving medical equipment
without replacement parts and patients without continuity of medications," Reed said.
Gerardo Ducos, an Amnesty researcher for the Caribbean region, told CNN that although medicines and medical
supplies can be licensed for export to Cuba, the conditions governing the process make their
export virtually impossible.
Embargo restricts health care – equipment & chemicals
Amnesty International 2009 “ The US Embargo Against Cuba: Its Impact on Economic and
Social Rights” http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/amr250072009eng.pdf
The provision of health care has also suffered from the limitations and restrictions imposed by the
embargo on the procurement of basic and specialized medical equipment and chemical
components needed for the production of generic medicines.
WFI 13
Pre Camp
83
Cuba Aff
Embargo hurts health care – hampers UN programs
Amnesty International 2009 “ The US Embargo Against Cuba: Its Impact on Economic and
Social Rights” http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/amr250072009eng.pdf
The increase in the costs for purchasing the necessary medicine or medical materials is
hampering the implementation of UN development projects and programmes. The repercussions of
these difficulties are ultimately felt by the intended beneficiaries of these programmes, who face long delays
before having access to adequate medicine or treatment.
Embargo hurts health care – infrastructure
Amnesty International 2009 “ The US Embargo Against Cuba: Its Impact on Economic and
Social Rights” http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/amr250072009eng.pdf
The impact of economic sanctions on health and health services is not limited to difficulties in
the supply of medicine. Health and health services depend on functioning water and
sanitation infrastructure, on electricity and other functioning equipment such as X-ray facilities or
refrigerators to store vaccines. The financial burden and commercial barriers have led to shortages or
intermittent availability of drugs, medicines, equipment and spare parts. It has also hindered
the renovation of hospitals, clinics and care centres for the elderly.64