Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Embargo AFF
1
2
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
1AC
3
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Plan
Plan: The United States federal government should increase economic engagement
with Cuba by lifting the embargo.
4
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Advantage 1: Latin American Relations
The US dragging its heals on the Cuban Embargo has placed Latin American on a
collision course – ending the embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin
America, establishing better relationship throughout the region.
White, Senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, 13
(Robert E., New York Times, 3/7/13, “After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations
With Cuba,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-forgood-neighbors-in-latin-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed 6/24/13, IC)
FOR most of our history, the
United States assumed that its security was inextricably linked to a partnership with
Latin America. This legacy dates from the Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, through the Rio pact, thepostwar treaty that pledged the
United States to come to the defense of its allies in Central and South America.¶ Yet for a half-century, our policies toward our southern
neighbors have alternated between intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities. The
death this week
of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous critic of the United States
among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades — offers an opportunity to restore bonds with
potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity.¶ Throughout his career, the autocratic Mr. Chávez used our
embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped
prop up the rule of Mr. Castro and his brother Raúl, Cuba’s current president. The embargo no longer serves any useful
purpose (if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American
lawmakers in Congress.¶ An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that
the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change
throughout the Americas.¶ I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America
in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The
1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies
that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century.¶ Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it
captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent revolution. Kennedy
reacted to the threat of
continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was
calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from Communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In
hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy’s
focus on Latin America rekindled the promise
of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American
relations.¶ Tragically, after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and “la noche mas
larga” — “the longest night” — began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes
flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free
speech and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of antiCommunism.¶ During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and closed off democratic
alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official
channels to cover up the Salvadoran military’s responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the
Foreign Service.¶ The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy
over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was
dominated by uniformed assassins. We armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes.¶ After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed
to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND
analysts found that United States policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling against social
injustice and state terror. As a result, “we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost
disproportionate to any conventional conception of the national interest.Ӧ Over the subsequent quarter-century, a series of profound political,
social and economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions
like the Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen
as irrelevant by Mr. Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States — which excludes the United
States and Canada — as an alternative.¶ At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Mr. Chávez said that “the
most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire.”¶ Mr. Chávez was masterful
at manipulating America’s antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist
aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
5
and labor.¶ Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares
about their consequences. After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin
America’s leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio
Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Mr. Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.¶ Lula, as he is universally
known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America ,
as it had been since the very early years of the Castro regime.¶ After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to
accomplish by stealth and economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action and porous
boycott succeeded primarily in bringing shame on the United States and turning Mr. Castro into a folk hero.¶ And even now, despite the
relaxing of travel restrictions and Raúl Castro’s announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile
community continues. The fact that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate — Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas
— are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations. (The third member,
Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his power has been
weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.)¶ Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak
nation can prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive?¶ The
re-election of President
Obama, and the death of Mr. Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our
imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry,
should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of
the Organization of American States. The
message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some
flexibility on Cuba and asks your help.¶ Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a
bilateral problem into a multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help
Cuba achieve a sufficient measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected
governments.¶ If, however, our
present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival
camps, the United States versus Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual
countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners
cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote.
Cuba is the litmus test for Latin American relations, but status quo gradualism
loosening the embargo fails to achieve political cooperation.
Sheridan, diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, 9
(Mary Beth, The Washington Post, 5/29/09, “U.S. Urged to Relax Cuba Policy to Boost
Regional Relations,” http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-0529/politics/36798831_1_cuba-scholar-oas-members-travel-restrictions, accessed
6/24/13, IC)
The U.S. government is fighting an effort to allow Cuba to return to the Organization of American
States after a 47-year suspension. But the resistance is putting it at odds with much of Latin America as
the Obama administration is trying to improve relations in the hemisphere.¶ Eliminating the Cold Warera ban would be largely symbolic, because Cuba has shown no sign of wanting to return to the OAS,
the main forum for political cooperation in the hemisphere. But the debate shows how central the
topic has become in U.S. relations with an increasingly assertive Latin America. The wrangling over
Cuba threatens to dominate a meeting of hemispheric foreign ministers, including Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton, scheduled for Tuesday in Honduras.¶ "Fifty years after the U.S. . . . made Cuba
its litmus test for its commercial and diplomatic ties in Latin America, Latin America is turning the
tables," said Julia E. Sweig, a Cuba scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. Now, she said, Latin
countries are "making Cuba the litmus test for the quality of the Obama administration's approach to
Latin America."¶ President Obama has taken steps toward improving ties with Cuba, lifting restrictions
on visits and money transfers by Cuban Americans and offering to restart immigration talks suspended
in 2004. But he has said he will not scrap the longtime economic embargo until Havana makes
democratic reforms and cleans up its human rights record. Ending the embargo would also entail
congressional action.¶ Obama is facing pressure to move faster, both from Latin American allies and
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
6
from key U.S. lawmakers. Bipartisan bills are pending in Congress that would eliminate all travel
restrictions and ease the embargo.¶ Cuba has sent mixed signals about its willingness to respond to the
U.S. gestures.¶ Latin American leaders say that isolating Cuba is anachronistic when most countries in
the region have established relations with communist nations such as China. The OAS secretary
general, José Miguel Insulza, has called the organization's 1962 suspension of Cuba "outdated" -- noting
it is based on the island's alignment with a "communist bloc" that no longer exists. However, he has
suggested that OAS members could postpone Cuba's full participation until it showed democratic
reforms.¶
Latin American cooperation checks terrorism and proliferation – antiterror training,
infosharing, and curbing proximate regional influence of Iran are vital internal links.
Ferkaluk, Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base Wing
Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force, 10
(Brian, Fall 2010, Global Security Studies, “Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage,” pg 12,
ACCESSED June 29, 2013, RJ)
The policy implications for the United States are to maintain the role of a guiding figure in Latin
American developments. The stakes for the US have never been higher. In a region that has a strong
history of domestic terrorism and stratocracy, strong oversight is warranted. The current US
administration’s policy on nuclear deterrence is that the threat of a nuclear attack from a sovereign
state has gone down, but the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists has gone
up. No region of the world is closer to the US or has a greater ease of access to the US border than
Latin America. Therefore, it is vital that the US continue providing antiterrorism training to key Latin
American states, offer economic assistance and encourage mutual cooperation and information
sharing among allied states. Once this is accomplished, Latin American nuclear proliferation will cease
to be a factor in the terrorist activity that threatens each state to this day. The mutual cooperation
will help to diminish the activities of groups like the FARC and the AUC. Furthermore, international
groups such as Al Qaida and Hezbollah will not be able to acquire nuclear weapons should they
develop a stronger presence in the region. A blind eye should also not be turned towards states that
overtly refuse to cooperate in the GWOT. States like Venezuela and Nicaragua should not be left to
their own devices. The relationships that are being built with Russia and Iran must also be carefully
monitored. Venezuela may not be very close to a nuclear weapon, but the technology and applied
sciences it receives from both Iran and Russia has the potential to speed up its development. It has
already failed to acquire technology from its neighbors, so the US must continue to solidify its relations
with states like Brazil and Argentina and discourage any relations with Iran. If its leaders and diplomats
can continue to press that issue, it can curb the increase in trade between Latin America and Iran and
end the political and diplomatic connections Iran has been forming in recent years. Above any other
measure, the US must ensure that every Latin American nation knows that it cares about the
development and defense of the region. If that region is secure, the US is secure; and as long as the
region struggles with terrorism and nuclear proliferation, the US will be there to support it in every
way possible.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
7
Iranian basing in Latin America is establishing networks to sponsor, foster and execute
terrorist attacks for decades.
Levitt, director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 6/14
(Matthew, 6/14/13, Tico Times, “Iran agents in Latin America,”
http://www.ticotimes.net/More-news/News-Briefs/Iran-agents-in-LatinAmerica_Friday-June-14-2013, accessed 6/30/13, IC)
But that's not all. Closer to the United States, Iran
not only continues to expand its presence and bilateral
relationships with countries like Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela, but it also maintains a
network of intelligence agents specifically tasked with sponsoring and executing terrorist attacks in
the Western Hemisphere.¶ The same day the State Department released its report, highly respected Argentine prosecutor Alberto
Nisman, who served as special prosecutor for the investigation into the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish
community center in Buenos Aires, released a 500-page document laying out how the Iranian regime has, since
the early 1980s, built and maintained "local clandestine intelligence stations designed to sponsor, foster and
execute terrorist attacks" in the Western Hemisphere.¶ Nisman found evidence that Iran is building
intelligence networks identical to the one responsible for the bombings in Argentina across the region
— from Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, and Colombia to Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago and
Suriname.¶ Nisman's 2006 report on the AMIA bombing already demonstrated how Iran established a robust intelligence network in South
America in the early 1980s. One document, seized during a court-ordered raid of the residence of an Iranian
diplomat north of Buenos Aires, included a map denoting areas populated by Muslim communities and
suggested an Iranian strategy to export Islam into South America — and from there to North America.
Highlighting areas densely populated by Muslims, the document informed that these "will be used from Argentina as
[the] center of penetration of Islam and its ideology towards the North American continent."¶ Nisman concluded
that the driving force behind Iran's intelligence efforts in Argentina was Mohsen Rabbani, an Iranian who
lived in Argentina for 11 years and played a key role in the Islamic Republic's intelligence operations in South America.
Rabbani, the primary architect of the AMIA plot, reportedly had come from Iran for the express purpose of heading the state-owned al-Tawhid
mosque in Buenos Aires, but he also served as a representative of the Iranian Ministry of Agriculture, which was tasked with ensuring the
quality of Argentine meat exported to Iran. The Argentine prosecutor reported that Rabbani began laying the groundwork for his spy network
after arriving in the country in 1983. Indeed, just prior to his departure for South America, Rabbani met Abolghasem Mesbahi, an Iranian
intelligence official who would later defect, and explained to Mesbahi that
he was being dispatched to Argentina "in
order to create support groups for exporting the Islamic revolution," according to Nisman's 2006 report.¶
Rabbani advanced his vision of the "Islamic revolution" through a variety of means — including the
execution of two large-scale attacks in Argentina. In 1992, Iran and Hezbollah bombed the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires,
killing 29 people. Two years later, they targeted the AMIA Jewish community center, killing 85 people. Based on Nisman's investigation, in 2007
Interpol issued six "red notices," which request international cooperation to arrest and extradite a suspect, for the key players behind the AMIA
bombing. Two of those red notices were for Mohsen Rezaei and Ali Akbar Velayati, both of whom are running for president in Iran's upcoming
election.¶ Rabbani's terrorist activities in South America, however, did not wane despite being indicted in Argentina. According to Nisman and
U.S. District Court documents from the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, Rabbani helped four men who were plotting to bomb New
York's John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2007 and who sought technical and financial assistance for the operation, codenamed "Chicken
Farm." All four men were ultimately convicted in federal court.¶ The four men first sought out Yasin Abu Bakr, leader of the Trinidadian militant
group Jamaat al-Muslimeen, and Adnan el-Shukrijumah, an al-Qaida operative who grew up in Brooklyn and South Florida and fled the United
States for the Caribbean in the days before the 9/11 attacks. Unable to find Shukrijumah, the plotters "sent [co-conspirator] Abdul Kadir to
meet with his contacts in the Iranian revolutionary leadership, including Mohsen Rabbani," according to a news release issued by the U.S.
attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York.¶ One co-conspirator was Kareem Ibrahim, an imam and leader of the Shiite Muslim
community in Trinidad and Tobago. During cross-examination at trial, Ibrahim admitted that he advised the plotters to approach Iranian leaders
with the plot and use operatives ready to engage in suicide attacks at the airport. In one of the recorded conversations entered into evidence,
Ibrahim told Russell Defreitas — a plotter who was a JFK baggage handler and a naturalized U.S. citizen — that the attackers must be ready to
"fight it out, kill who you could kill, and go back to Allah."¶ Documents seized from Kadir's house in Guyana demonstrated that he was a
Rabbani disciple who built a Guyanese intelligence base for Iran much like his mentor had built in Argentina. In a letter written to Rabbani in
2006, Kadir agreed to perform a "mission" for Rabbani to determine whether a group of individuals in Guyana and Trinidad were up to some
unidentified task.¶ In the 1990s and 2000s, Rabbani also oversaw the education and indoctrination of Guyanese and other South American
Muslim youth, including Kadir's children, in Iran. Kadir was ultimately arrested in Trinidad aboard a plane headed to Venezuela, en route to Iran.
He was carrying a computer drive with photographs featuring himself and his children posing with guns, which prosecutors suggested were
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
8
intended as proof for Iranian officials of his intent and capability to carry out an attack.¶ In 2011, not long before the last defendant in the JFK
airport bomb plot was convicted, evidence emerged suggesting Rabbani was still doing intelligence work in South America. An April 2011 article
in the Brazilian magazine Veja, citing documents from the FBI, CIA, and Interpol, reported that Rabbani "frequently slips in and out of Brazil on a
false passport and has recruited at least 24 youngsters in three Brazilian states to attend 'religious formation' classes in Tehran," according to
an article in the Telegraph.¶ In the word of one Brazilian official quoted by the magazine, "Without
anybody noticing, a
generation of Islamic extremists is appearing in Brazil."¶ The growth of this Iranian extremist network
in South America has immediate repercussions for the security of the United States. The same day that Nisman
and the State Department released their reports, an Iranian-American used-car salesman from Texas was sentenced to 25
years in prison for his role in an Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States at
a popular Washington restaurant. In the assessment by James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, this
plot "shows that some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed
their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or
perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime."¶ Strangely, one of the countries most vulnerable to this terrorist threat
appears more interested in placating, rather than opposing, the country responsible. In February, Argentina approved a deal with Iran for a
joint "truth commission" to investigate the 1994 AMIA bombing — a step that insults the Argentine victims of the attack and makes a mockery
of the rule of law. Of course, Nisman, Argentina's own special prosecutor, left no doubt in his 2006 report and his latest 500-page report about
the truth of who was behind the bombing — Iranian agents.¶ The State Department has it right: There has indeed been a "marked resurgence"
of Iranian state sponsorship of terrorism over the past 18 months. But as the new Nisman report drives home, here's an even more disturbing
fact — Iran
has run intelligence networks in the United States' backyard to "sponsor, foster and execute
terrorist attacks" for decades.
Terrorist attack prompts nuclear response, drawing Russian retaliation.
Morgan, Hankuk University Professor of Foreign Studies, 9
(Dennis, Professor @ Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (South Korea, “World on fire: two scenarios of the
destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race,” Futures, November, Science Direct,
6-31-13)
In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question ‘‘Is Nuclear War Inevitable??’’ [10].4 In
Section 1, Moore points out what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions
between powerful countries. No doubt, they’ve figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions
into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant terrorists
would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or
Israel. Because of the Russian ‘‘dead hand’’ system, ‘‘where regional nuclear commanders would
be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed,’’ it is likely that any attack would be blamed on
the United States’’ [10]. Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were
to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with the suicidal
‘‘Samson option’’ against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option
would also include attacks on Russia and even ‘‘anti-Semitic’’ European cities [10]. In that case, of course,
Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved
as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them much more
powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in
the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout
the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted
to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon
the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And what many people fail to realize is what a
precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Any accident, mistaken communication,
false signal or ‘‘lone wolf’ act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of a few minutes, unleash
the use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a rapid escalation of
nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited nuclear war is actually less probable since each
country would act under the ‘‘use them or lose them’’ strategy and psychology; restraint by one
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
power would be interpreted as a weakness by the other, which could be exploited as a window of opportunity
to ‘‘win’’ the war. In other words, once Pandora’s Box is opened, it will spread quickly, as it will be the
signal for permission for anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of
people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however, ‘‘everyone else feels free to do so. The bottom line is
that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate factions glued together
and to satisfy elites’ needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably
use nuclear weapons. And as long as large nations oppress groups who seek self determination, some of those
groups will look for any means to fight their oppressors’’ [10]. In other words, as long as war and aggression are
backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time before the escalation of violent
conflict leads to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and once even just one is used, it is very likely that
many, if not all, will be used, leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the destruction of
much of human civilization while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is such a
remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter.
9
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
10
Advantage 2: Science
The embargo is blocking scientific exchange, robbing research opportunities and
scientific cooperation throughout the region – ending the embargo is necessary for the
open exchange required for scientific progress.
Pastrana et al., Sergio Jorge Pastrana is the Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba,
Michael T. Clegg is the Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Donald Bren
Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences,
University of California, Irvine. 08
(Sergio Jorge, Michael T. Clegg, Science AAAS October 2008, “U.S. – Cuban Scientific Relations,” Vol. 322
no. 5900 p. 345, ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)
In a few years, the two oldest national academies of science in the world outside of Europe—those of
the United States and Cuba—will celebrate their 150th anniversaries. Yet despite the proximity of both
nations and many common scientific interests, the U.S. embargo on exchanges with Cuba, which began
in 1961 and is now based on the 1996 U.S. Helms-Burton Act and subsequent regulations, has largely
blocked scientific exchange. It's time to establish a new scientific relationship, not only to address
shared challenges in health, climate, agriculture, and energy, but also to start building a framework
for expanded cooperation. Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation deprive both research
communities of opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the hemisphere,
particularly in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation,
vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research facilities
that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific community could
benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba typically sits in the path of
hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great destruction, as was the case with Hurricane
Katrina and again last month with Hurricane Ike. Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to
protect threatened populations and minimize damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike
when it struck Cuba, there was less loss of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it
later struck Texas as a category 2 hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody.
Another major example where scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on
tropical diseases, such as dengue fever. This viral disease is epidemic throughout the tropics, notably in
the Americas, and one of the first recorded outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia in the 18th century.
Today, one of the world's most outstanding research centers dedicated to dengue fever is in Cuba,
and although it actively cooperates with Latin America and Africa, there is almost no interaction with
U.S. scientists. Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S. mainland, and sharing knowledge resources
to counter outbreaks of the disease would be an investment in the health security of both peoples.
Cuba has also made important strides in biotechnology, including the production of several important
vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields,
ranging from drug addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban scientists are
engaged in research cooperation with many countries, including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico,
China, and India. Yet there is no program of cooperation with any U.S. research institution. The value
system of science—openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for evidence—provides
a framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based approaches that cross from
science into the social, economic, and political arenas. Beyond allowing for the mutual leveraging of
knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build important cultural and social links among
peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report argues that the United States needs to revamp
its engagement with Latin America because it is no longer the only significant force in this
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
11
hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba, including the imposition of trade
limitations that extend into scientific relations, continue to undermine U.S. standing in the entire
region, especially because neither Cuba nor any other Latin American country imposes such
restrictions. As a start, we urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by
scientists, as dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded
so as to allow direct cooperation in research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased scientific
exchanges. Allowing scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in science, it may well
favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human well-being. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has
hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our mutual anniversaries by starting a new
era of scientific cooperation.
Scenario 1: Oil Spills
Gulf of Mexico is the fastest growing deepwater market in the world.
Beaubouef, managing editor for “Offshore” magazine, 6/1
(Bruce, Offshore Magazine, 6/1/13, “Gulf Drilling Rebounds to pre-Macondo levels,”
http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-73/issue-6/gulf-of-mexico/gulfdrilling-rebounds-to-pre-macondo-levels.html, 6/26/13, ND)
Drilling activity in the Gulf of Mexico is rebounding slowly but surely from the events of 2010, and is part of a general
recovery in E&P activity taking place in the Gulf in the wake of Macondo.¶ The increase in drilling is driven by sustained high
oil prices, new lease sales, the promulgation of a new safety regime, fiscal stability, and the fact that
the pace of permitting has finally returned to pre-spill levels. Since October 2012, 55 wells have been
cleared for drilling.¶ In the first half of this year, the Gulf of Mexico is expected to have 46 competitive
deepwater rigs, and this number is projected to increase by mid-2014 to just over 50 competitive deepwater
units, according to Rigzone's RigLogix Database.¶ Last year, eight newbuild floaters entered the Gulf of Mexico with another eight expected to
enter in 2013. Thus far, five newbuild floaters are forecasted to enter the 2014 GoM market with only one new unit projected for 2015.¶ The
deepwater rig count for 2013 is forecasted to be the highest it has been in five years. The overall floater fleet is set to expand by 31% with the
newbuild plans, while the jackup fleet will expand by 18%, according to an analysis conducted by Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. ¶ Looking at
announced contracts in 2013 and 2014, analysts believe that there will be 45 to 50 rigs in the deepwater GoM through 2014, with the
possibility of more. Additionally, development drilling activity is expected to reach a new peak in 2013, which will then likely be superseded in
the following two years, according to a Wood Mackenzie report.¶ Some
analysts describe the Gulf as the fastest growing
deepwater market in the world today, one that will continue to grow into 2014. Optimistic projections hold that the Gulf rig
count could double by 2017, with predictions that oil service companies alone could see revenue from the Gulf rise from $4 billion in 2011 to
$12 billion in 2015.
The Embargo prevents cooperation on oil spills – Cuba needs US equipment.
Stephens, executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas focused on
U.S.-Cuba relations, 11
(Sarah, 3/14/11, Los Angeles Times, “Like Oil and Water in the Gulf,”
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/14/opinion/la-oe-stephens-cuba-oil-20110314,
6/26/13, ND)
Thanks to the U.S. embargo against Cuba — a remnant of the Cold War — the risks to the United States begin the
moment the first drill bit pierces the seabed. And we are utterly unprepared.¶ Not only does the embargo
prohibit U.S. firms from joining Cuba in any efforts to extract its offshore resources, thus giving the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
12
competitive advantage to foreign firms, but it
also denies Cuba access to U.S. equipment for drilling and
environmental protection — an especially troubling policy considering the potential for a spill. The
embargo also compels Cuba's foreign partners to go through contortions, such as ordering a drilling rig built in China and shipping it nearly
10,000 miles to Cuban waters, to avoid violating U.S. law.¶ Most important, the
failed policy of isolating Cuba has the U.S.
paralyzed: It stops us from engaging Cuba in meaningful environmental cooperation and prevents us from
addressing in advance the threat of potential spills caused by hurricanes or technological failures, which could put our
waters, fisheries and beaches at peril.¶ As Cuba gets ready to drill, the Obama administration has limited options. It could do
nothing. It could try to stop Cuba from developing its oil and natural gas, an alternative most likely to fail in an energy-hungry world. Or it could
use its executive authority to cooperate with Cuba, despite the embargo, to ensure that drilling in the gulf protects our mutual interests. ¶ Since
the 1990s, Cuba
has showed a serious commitment to the environment, building an array of environmental policies,
no experience responding to major spills. And, like the U.S., Cuba has to
balance its economic and environmental interests, and the environmental side will not always prevail.¶ Against this backdrop, cooperation
and engagement is the right approach, and there is already precedent for it.¶ During the BP spill, Cuba permitted a vessel
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to look for damage in Cuban waters. The Obama administration declared
its willingness to provide limited licenses for U.S. firms to respond to the BP spill, and to others in the future that threaten
Cuba. It also provided visas for Cuban scientists to attend an important environmental conference in Florida. But these modest
measures are not sufficient.¶ Members of Congress from Florida have introduced bills to impose sanctions on foreign oil companies
many based on U.S. and Spanish law. But it has
and U.S. firms that help Cuba drill for oil, and to punish those foreign firms by denying them the right to drill in U.S. waters. These proposals will
not stop Cuba from drilling; if enacted, Cuba's partners will disregard them, and they will make cooperation to protect our mutual coastal
environment even more difficult.¶ Energy
policy and environmental protection are classic examples of how the
embargo is an abiding threat to U.S. interests. It should no longer be acceptable to base U.S. foreign
policy on the illusion that sanctions will cause Cuba's government to collapse — or stop Cuba from developing
its oil resources. Nor should this policy or the political dynamic that sustains it prevent the U.S. from addressing both the
challenges and benefits of Cuba finding meaningful amounts of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.¶
The embargo threatens biodiversity in shared and proximate regions – no bilateral
cooperation on endangered species, oil spills, or natural disasters is sufficient in the
status quo.
Boom 12 (Brian M. Boom, Director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, September 2012,
“Biodiversity without Borders: Advancing U.S.-Cuba Cooperation through ¶ Environmental Research,”
Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 3 (September 2012*). ¶
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders. Accessed June 24, 2013,
RJ)
THE ever-increasing challenges to the biodiversity shared by Cuba and the ¶ United States provide the
opportunity and the need for the two nations to take ¶ an enhanced collaborative, bilateral approach
to addressing shared issues. Cuba ¶ lies a mere ninety miles south of the U.S. state of Florida, and the
two countries’ ¶ territorial waters meet in the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. Cuba and ¶ the
United States thus share much biodiversity—ranging from varied populations ¶ of organisms to diverse
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Native species migrate, ¶ exotic species invade, disease-causing
species disperse, and rare species go extinct ¶ in the face of growing habitat modification. The living
components of this shared ¶ environment are dynamically impacted, sometimes unpredictably so, by
natural or ¶ man-made environmental disasters. Nature does not respect political boundaries ¶ nor do
such potential disasters as oil spills, toxic releases, hurricanes, and tropical ¶ storms. Such events
provide the sine qua non for greater bilateral cooperation. ¶ Governments around the world routinely
collaborate on shared environmental ¶ concerns bilaterally or multilaterally, depending on the situation
being addressed. ¶ Environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from local to international ¶
levels often work in partnership with governments to solve environmental problems ¶ that extend
beyond national boundaries. Such public/private arrangements work well in most circumstances, and
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
13
there are many effective mechanisms in place to ¶ deal with challenges ranging from endangered
species and ecosystems to oil and ¶ toxic waste spills.¶ However, a lack of formal diplomatic relations
can limit desirable cooperation ¶ on shared environmental issues. The U.S. embargo on trade with
Cuba —¶ which was instituted in 1961 by the Kennedy administration in response to ¶ Cuba’s
nationalization of U.S. businesses’ properties in Cuba during the Cuban ¶ Revolution—and subsequent
regulations have thwarted the efforts of Cuban and ¶ U.S. scientists to collaborate on environmental
or other professional and academic ¶ matters.1¶ There is essentially no intergovernmental
environmental interaction ¶ between the United States and Cuba . The shared biodiversity of these
countries, ¶ and in some cases that of other nations in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico ¶ regions,
suffers as a result . ¶ Fortunately, some NGOs in the United States have had success over the years in ¶
working collaboratively with their Cuban counterparts on shared environmental ¶ issues. The
experiences of such NGOs can inform a way forward in structuring ¶ an enhanced mechanism for
bilateral cooperation. Also fortunately, on January 14, ¶ 2011, the Obama administration announced
new rules that ease some restrictions ¶ on U.S. citizens’ travel and remittances to Cuba, which will
collaterally encourage ¶ more bilateral environmental collaboration as well. While these steps have
created ¶ some space, given the political realities, a targeted environmental agreement is ¶ required
to facilitate further mutually beneficial study, monitoring, and protection ¶ of shared biodiversity.
Environmental cooperation between US and Cuba spills over into the region, creating
a paradigm for global sustainability
Conell, Research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 9
(Christina, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an Environmental Duo?“,
http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/, 6/25/13, AZ)
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
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
14
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.¶
Offshore oil development threatens Cuba and Florida environment, oil spills could
destroy the ecosystem, including coral reefs and fisheries.
Conell, Research Associate for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 09
(Christina, 6-12-09, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be
an Environmental Duo?,” http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmentalduo/, 6/26/13, ND)
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 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.
Coral reefs are vital to curbing ocean acidification, necessary for breathable oxygen
and the marine food web
Romm, Ph.D. in physics from MIT, 9
(Joseph, Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, “Imagine a World without
Fish: Deadly ocean acidification — hard to deny, harder to geo-engineer, but not hard to stop — is
subject of documentary,” http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/09/02/204589/a-sea-change-imagine-aworld-without-fish-ocean-acidification-film/, 6-30-13)
Other continental shelf regions may also be impacted where anthropogenic CO2-enriched water is being
upwelled onto the shelf. Or listen to the Australia’s ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies,
which warns: The world’s oceans are becoming more acid, with potentially devastating consequences
for corals and the marine organisms that build reefs and provide much of the Earth’s breathable
oxygen. The acidity is caused by the gradual buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere,
dissolving into the oceans. Scientists fear it could be lethal for animals with chalky skeletons which
make up more than a third of the planet’s marine life”¦. Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons are
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
15
at the base of the marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form
their skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it harder for the animals
to form their skeletal structures (calcify). “Analysis of coral cores shows a steady drop in calcification
over the last 20 years,” says Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of CoECRS and the University of
Queensland. “There’s not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air above and it
dissolves into the oceans. “When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you
put calcification out of business in the oceans.”
Scenario 2: Biodiversity
US Cuba cooperation is key to sustain biodiversity – the alternative results in
ecosystem degradation and overfishing
PR Newswire 13
(“United States Scientists Visit Cuba to Discuss Overfishing, Coral Reefs, Ocean Energy
and Ocean Issues”,http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-statesscientists-visit-cuba-to-discuss-overfishing-coral-reefs-ocean-energy-and-ocean-issues65763572.html, 6/24/13, AZ)
RALEIGH, N.C., Oct. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Environmental Defense Fund will send a team of
experts to Havana, Cuba, on Sunday to discuss ways to eliminate overfishing, protect coral reefs,
conserve coastal areas, and tap potential ocean energy - a signal that greater environmental
cooperation may be on the horizon. EDF scientists and policy experts and Cuban scientists and
environmental officials will have a series of meetings about how the United States and Cuba can work
together to protect ocean waters and marine resources shared by the two countries. The meetings
come on the heels of a September visit to the United States by Cuban environmental officials.¶ "The
United States and Cuba share many ecological resources, but the countries have different ways of
managing them," said Daniel Whittle, a senior attorney at EDF and director of its Cuba Program.
"Fishing, coastal development, and offshore oil and gas exploration in Cuba can have impacts in the
United States, and vice-versa. The sooner we work together to manage shared resources and find
solutions common problems, the sooner we'll see benefits for the people, the environment and the
economy in both countries."¶ EDF has asked the Obama administration to ease policies that limit
scientific exchanges between U.S. and Cuban scientists and conservation professionals. Last month the
U.S. State Department issued visas for four Cuban environmental officials to attend scientific meetings
hosted by EDF in Washington, DC, and Sarasota, Florida--the first such meetings held in the U.S. in
several years.¶ "These precedent-setting meetings are a hopeful sign that greater environmental
cooperation is on the horizon," said Dr. Doug Rader, chief ocean scientist for EDF. "An important first
step toward managing our shared marine resources is to share good science and good ideas. We have
a lot to learn from each other."¶ Rader added that expanded scientific and management cooperation
can help address the growing threats to coral reefs, ocean fish populations, habitats for migratory birds,
marine mammals and turtles, and biodiversity.¶ Just 90 miles from the tip of Florida, Cuba shares a large
amount of ocean territory with the United States. Because of the prevailing currents and Cuba's
proximity, preserving its marine resources is critically important to the economies of coastal
communities in both countries.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
16
Overfishing kills food security
Koster, operator of overfishing.org, 2011
(Pepijin, 2/1/2011, “Why is Overfishing a Problem?” Online:
http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_overfishing_a_problem.php FG)
In the first chapter we already discussed that globally fishing fleets are at least two to three times as
large as needed to take present day catches of fish and other marine species. To explain why
overfishing is a problem we first have to get an idea on the scale of the problem. This is best done by
looking at some figures published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. 1 The FAO scientists
publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report
is generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of problems but does show the key issue
and trends. Due to the difficulty of aggregating and combining the data it can be stated that the SOFIA
report is a number of years behind of the real situation. 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited 20% are
moderately exploited 17% are overexploited 7% are depleted 1% is recovering from depletion The
above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks are either overexploited or depleted. Another
52% is fully exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation (maximum sustainable
production level) and collapse. Thus a total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to overexploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish
stocks are already gone. In the real world all this comes down to two serious problems. We are losing
species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under
stress and at risk of collapse. We are in risk of losing a valuable food source many depend upon for
social, economical or dietary reasons. The single best example of the ecological and economical dangers
of overfishing is found in Newfoundland, Canada. In 1992 the once thriving cod fishing industry came to
a sudden and full stop when at the start of the fishing season no cod appeared. Overfishing allowed by
decades of fisheries mismanagement was the main cause for this disaster that resulted in almost 40.000
people losing their livelihood and an ecosystem in complete state of decay. Now, fifteen years after the
collapse, many fishermen are still waiting for the cod to return and communities still haven't recovered
from the sudden removal of the regions single most important economical driver. The only people
thriving in this region are the ones fishing for crab, a species once considered a nuisance by the
Newfoundland fishermen. It's not only the fish that is affected by fishing. As we are fishing down the
food web 3 the increasing effort needed to catch something of commercial value marine mammals,
sharks, sea birds, and non commercially viable fish species in the web of marine biodiversity are
overexploited, killed as bycatch and discarded (up to 80% of the catch for certain fisheries), and
threatened by the industrialized fisheries. 4 Scientists agree that at current exploitation rates many
important fish stocks will be removed from the system within 25 years. Dr. Daniel Pauly describes it as
follows: “The big fish, the bill fish, the groupers, the big things will be gone. It is happening now. If
things go unchecked, we'll have a sea full of little horrible things that nobody wants to eat. We might
end up with a marine junkyard dominated by plankton.”
Food shortages lead to World War III
Calvin, theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington, 98
(William, Atlantic Monthly, January, The Great Climate Flip-Flop, Vol 281, No. 1, 1998, p. 47-64, 6-31-13)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries
to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would
go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use
their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources,
driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's
vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as
Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do
so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
17
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Inherency**
18
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
19
Inherency - Top Level
Plan won’t happen in the SQ
Dreyfuss, Robert Dreyfuss, a Nation contributing editor, is an investigative journalist in Alexandria,
Virginia, specializing in politics and national security, 11
(Bob, January 19, 2011, thenation.com, “Not Enough on Cuba Embargo,”
http://www.thenation.com/blog/157863/not-enough-cuba-embargo#, ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)
Next year, the US embargo against Cuba will be a half-century old, a mold-encrusted relic in the cold
war museum, yet there it is—and it doesn’t look like the Obama administration is planning to end it
anytime soon. On January 14, the White House announced a series of half-measures that weaken
American efforts to isolate Havana, welcome steps all: academic, cultural, and religious groups can now
freely travel to Cuba; American citizens are free to send money to non-relatives in the island nation, up
to $500 every three months; and any US airport may now allow licensed charter aircraft to fly roundtrip.
It’s a follow-up to measures that President Obama announced in April 2009 lifting restrictions on travel
and cash remittances by family members of Cuban residents. Yet the president’s actions hardly qualify
as a profile in courage. He held off making the announcement last fall, when hawks in Congress,
including Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Albio Sires (D-NJ) warned that easing
anti-Cuba measures could hurt Democrats' re-election chances, and when the decision was made it was
released late on Friday evening, while Republicans were out of town on a retreat. Yet more than twothirds of voters support easing travel restrictions on Cuba, and 75 percent (86 percent of Democrats)
back the idea of a meeting between US and Cuban leaders. Conservative groups, from the US Chamber
of Commerce to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops want to end the isolation of Cuba. And in the
end, what Obama did only gets American policy back roughly to where it was during the Clinton
administration, before George W. Bush tightened the screws. The usual suspects made noises:
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee,
condemned Obama’s decision, and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) called it a "gift to the Castro
brothers." It remains to be seen if Obama will quietly ignore their ilk and move forward to end the
embargo once and for all. The Cuban foreign ministry, while calling Obama’s actions "positive,"
concluded: "They have a very limited reach and do not change US policy against Cuba." It's past time
for change we do believe in.
Cuban embargo won’t be lifted anytime soon
Brush, Michael Brush is an award-winning New York financial writer who has covered business and
investing for The New York Times, Money magazine, and MSN, 1/22
(Michael, 1/22/2013, MSN Money,“Time to Invest in Cuba?” http://money.msn.com/investing/timeto-invest-in-cuba, ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)
Is this the year we finally say hasta la vista to the five-decade-old Cuban trade embargo? Tom
Herzfeld, a Miami-area fund manager who studies Cuba-U.S. relations, thinks so. This is an
unconventional view. But stranger things have happened in the past few years, like the Arab Spring.
Besides, it's often the unexpected that provides the best returns in investing. And here, the investment
implications could be big, for several companies. Herzfeld thinks the policy change would boost
companies as diverse as cruise line operator Carnival (CCL 0.00%, news), cargo shipper Seaboard (SEB
+0.49%, news), regional airline Copa (CPA -1.79%, news), soft-drink distributor Coca-Cola Femsa (KOF
+3.25%, news) and even Watsco (WSO +0.30%, news), which likely would sell more air conditioners in
Cuba. These stocks are all big holdings in the Herzfeld Caribbean Basin (CUBA -0.47%, news) fund, which
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
20
Herzfeld says he has positioned to benefit from embargo elimination. "Now, more than ever, the pieces
are falling into place where the embargo could be lifted this year," maintains Herzfeld. Why now?
Herzfeld cites President Barack Obama's view that economic relations with Cuba should be liberalized -and the president's greater freedom to pursue this goal now that the election is behind him. Herzfeld
points to the nomination of Sen. of John Kerry,D-mass., who shares this view, to lead the State
Department, as well as to steps by Cuba to improve human rights, such as the recent loosening of travel
restrictions for Cubans. Then there's the shaky health of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, whose demise
could lead to big changes. "I believe if he were to die, that would be the single event that would led to
the lifting of the embargo," says Herzfeld. A possible leadership transition in Venezuela, which we'll get
to in a moment, could also be a factor in the embargo coming down. Cuban experts I surveyed don't
think much of Herzfeld's theory. "It won't happen anytime soon," predicts Ted Piccone, a senior fellow
and deputy director for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. Riordan Roett, the director of the
Latin American Studies Program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, puts
it more bluntly: "What's he smoking?" Cuba experts cite two main obstacles. First, the embargo is in
place because of a law passed by Congress, which Obama can't just overturn on his own. Next, CubanAmerican congressional leaders, who have a big say, strongly oppose any change. Top among them:
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who may be taking over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Rep.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., former chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; and Sen.
Marco Rubio, R-Fla. "They are just not going to budge on this," says Roet
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
21
Inherency— Yes Embargo
The Embargo is out of date and lifting it has international support but the U.S. refuses
to remove its embargo on Cuba.
Birns, Director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, and Mills, Senior Fellow at the
Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 1-30
(Larry and Frederick, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “Best Time for U.S. – Cuba
Rapprochement is Now,” http://www.coha.org/best-time-for-u-s-cubarapprochement-is-now/, 6/23/13, ND)
U.S. policy towards Havana is also anachronistic. During the
excesses of the cold war, the U.S. sought to use harsh and unforgiving measures to isolate Cuba from
its neighbors in order to limit the influence of the Cuban revolution on a variety of insurgencies being waged in the region. That
narrative did not sufficiently recognize the homegrown causes of insurgency in the hemisphere. Some argue
that it inadvertently drove Cuba further into the Soviet camp. Ironically, at the present juncture of world history, the
embargo is in some ways isolating the U.S. rather than Cuba. Washington is often viewed as implementing a regional
policy that is defenseless and without a compass. At the last Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April 2012, member
states, with the exception of Washington, made it clear that they unanimously want Cuba to
participate in the next plenary meeting or the gathering will be shut down. There are new regional organizations,
In addition to being counter-productive and immoral,
such as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), that now include Cuba and exclude the U.S. Not even America’s closest
allies support the embargo. Instead, over the years, leaders in NATO and the OECD member nations have visited Cuba and, in some cases,
allocated lines of credit to the regime. So it was no surprise that in
November of 2012, the United Nations General Assembly
voted overwhelmingly (188 – 3), for the 21st year in a row, against the US embargo. Finally, while a slim majority of Cuban
Americans still favor the measure, changing demographics are eroding and outdating this support. As famed Cuban
Researcher, Wayne Smith, the director of the Latin America Rights & Security: Cuba Project, at the Center for International Policy, points out,
“There
are now many more new young Cuban Americans who support a more sensible approach to
Cuba” (Washington Post, Nov. 9, 2012).
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
22
Inherency— US-Cuba Relations Low Now
No relations Hanson et al. , Senior Production Editor on the Council of Foreign Relations, 1/31
(Stephanie and Brianna Lee, January 31, 2013, Council of Foreign Relations, “U.S.-Cuba Relations,”
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113, ACCESSED June 24, 2013, RJ)
What is the status of U.S.-Cuba relations?¶ They are virtually nonexistent. There is a U.S. mission in
Havana, Cuba's capital, but it has minimal communication with the Cuban government. Since 1961, the official
U.S. policy toward Cuba has been two-pronged: economic embargo and diplomatic isolation. The George
W. Bush administration strongly enforced the embargo and increased travel restrictions. Americans with immediate family in Cuba could visit
once every three years for a maximum of two weeks, while family remittances to Cuba were reduced from $3,000 to just $300 in 2004.
However, in April 2009, President Obama eased some of these policies. He went further in 2011 to undo many of the restrictions imposed by
the Bush administration, thus allowing U.S. citizens to send remittances to non-family members in Cuba and to travel to Cuba for educational or
religious purposes.¶ Congress amended the trade embargo in 2000 to allow agricultural exports from the United States to Cuba. In 2008, U.S.
companies exported roughly $710 million worth of food and agricultural products to the island nation, according to the U.S.-Cuba Trade and
Economic Council. However, that number fell by about 50 percent in 2012. Total agricultural exports since 2001 reached $3.5 billion as of
February 2012. Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas have all brokered agricultural deals with Cuba in recent years.¶ Tension
between Cuba
and the United States flared in December 2009 with Cuba's arrest of Alan Gross, a USAID subcontractor who
traveled to the country to deliver communications equipment and arrange Internet access for its Jewish community. Cuban authorities alleged
Gross was attempting to destabilize the Cuban regime through a USAID-sponsored "democracy promotion" program, and he was subsequently
sentenced to fifteen years in prison.¶ Despite initial
optimism over Obama's election, Cuban politicians and
citizens are less hopeful of a positive relationship developing between the two countries. Raúl and
Fidel Castro have both criticized the Obama administration. In a 2009 speech, Raúl Castro accused the
United States of "giving new breath to open and undercover subversion against Cuba."
Relations down now – Raul doesn’t change anything
Allam, national correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers, 2/25
(Hannah, Februrary 25, 2013, Miami Herald, “Even if Raul Castro steps down in 2018, U.S.-Cuban
relations may not thaw,” http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/25/v-print/3253690/even-if-raulcastro-steps-down.html , ACCESSED June 24, 2013, RJ)
Cuban President Raul Castro’s announcement over the weekend that he’ll step down in 2018 after the five-year term he just
began ends starts the countdown for U.S. officials contemplating a thaw in relations with the island
nation. But analysts caution that so far the regime’s reforms amount to window dressing.¶ By law, the United States is restricted from
normalizing relations with Cuba as long as the island is ruled by the Castro brothers: ailing revolutionary leader Fidel, 86, and his brother Raul,
81.¶ Raul Castro said Sunday that not only would he step aside in 2018, he also would propose term limits and age caps for future presidents,
the latest in a series of moves that are hailed by some Cuba observers as steps toward reform but dismissed by others as disingenuous.¶ But
those are hardly the kinds of breakthrough reforms that State Department and independent analysts say will be needed to improve U.S.-
Cuba relations, which froze after the Cuban revolution of 1959 that saw Fidel Castro align himself with
the communist bloc and the United States impose a trade embargo that 54 years later remains in
place.¶ “Each side is making small, subtle moves, but since it’s a glacier, it’s not going to melt
overnight,” said Alex Crowther, a former U.S. Army colonel and Cuba specialist whose published commentaries on bilateral relations include
a 2009 essay calling for an end to the embargo.¶ Analysts of U.S.-Cuban relations said that the latest moves are primarily self-serving for the
regime, allowing the two elderly brothers to handpick an acceptable successor before they’re too infirm to administer the country.¶ Raul
Castro’s anointing of Communist Party stalwart Miguel Diaz-Canel, 52, as the favored successor was the most important takeaway from the
president’s speech, several analysts agreed.¶ “It doesn’t mean he’s being chosen to succeed Raul, but it does mean they’re leaving the
gerontocracy and opening up the aperture to younger leaders,” Crowther said.¶ Diaz-Canel is “an impressive career politician,” said Jorge
Dominguez, a Cuban American professor of Mexican and Latin American politics and economics at Harvard University. He moved through the
Communist Party ranks, serving as a provincial first secretary, minister of higher education, a member of the party’s political bureau and one of
the Castro’s gaggle of vice presidents.¶ “In those roles, he has a wider array of responsibilities that have positioned him well for the eventual
succession,” Dominguez said. “He has also been traveling abroad with Raul to add foreign experience to what had been principally a domesticpolicy resume.”¶ When Castro elevated Diaz-Canel to first vice president and set a date for his own stepping aside, for the first time there was
an expiration date for Castro rule of Cuba.¶ “It is true that other would-be successors appeared from time to time, but none was anointed, and
none had a formal designation as the successor,” Dominguez said. “Sure, there will be political fights in the future. Theirs is a political party,
23
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
after all, and politicians will jockey for power and position. But Diaz-Canel is now the frontrunner.Ӧ The Castro brothers know by now that
such moves also play well in the United States, where they just got a public relations boost with the remarks of a U.S. senator who led a
delegation to Cuba this month to seek the release of Alan Gross, an American imprisoned on the island for illegally importing communications
equipment while on a USAID-funded democracy-building program.¶ After meeting Castro, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told reporters that it was
time to move on from the U.S. “Cold War mentality” toward Cuba.¶ The
State Department was publicly resistant Monday
to calls for a softening of the U.S. stance toward Cuba, with a spokesman bluntly dismissing Raul
Castro’s promise to step down as not “a fundamental change” for Cuba because it lacked concrete
measures toward democratic rule.¶ “We remain hopeful for the day that the Cuban people get democracy, when they can have
the opportunity to freely pick their own leaders in an open democratic process and enjoy the freedoms of speech and association without fear
of reprisal,” State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters Monday. “We’re
speech he gave when he was ratified for a second term as president, Raul
clearly not there yet.Ӧ In the 35-minute
Castro made clear that he had no intention of
moving away from his socialist roots.¶ “I was not chosen to be president to restore capitalism to Cuba. I was elected to defend,
maintain and continue to perfect socialism, not destroy it,” Castro told Parliament, according to a translation published in news reports.¶ That
message is why longtime Cuba observers find it hard to swallow that such an entrenched regime would willingly push reforms that could hasten
the demise of Communist Party rule. Critics
say Cubans are less likely to see a shift in U.S. policy than a rise in
domestic unrest that forces change from within as Cubans grow impatient for promised reforms.¶ “It’s
political kabuki and I’m not sure it can hold together for another five years,” said Jason Poblete, a Cuban-American attorney in Washington and
an outspoken critic of the Castro regime.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
24
Inherency—Now Key
Now is key – there is a window of opportunity to open up relations
Pomerantz, PHD from Tufts University, 2013
[Phyllis R., 1-1-2013, The Globe and Mail, “Now’s the Time to Lift the U.S. Embargo on
Cuba,” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/nows-the-time-to-lift-the-usembargo-on-cuba/article6790494/ EJH]
.¶ 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.
Now is the time to lift the embargo- discard ineffective cold war relics.
[Phyllis R., 1-1-2013, The Globe and Mail, “Now’s the Time to Lift the U.S. Embargo on
Cuba,” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/nows-the-time-to-lift-the-usembargo-on-cuba/article6790494/ EJH]
Now that the election is over, the United States has a rare opportunity to do away with one of its
most pointless and ineffective foreign policies – the embargo of Cuba – that is as obsolete as the
“cool” 1950s and 1960s sedans still running on the streets of Havana.¶ Just a few weeks ago, U.S.
President Barack Obama sat down with leaders in Myanmar, an international pariah for many years
with a military responsible for thousands of civilian deaths. The United States now trades actively with
Vietnam, which remains under the control of the same Communist Party against whom it once fought
– and lost – a terrible war. The U.S. has a normal, albeit complex, diplomatic and commercial
relationship with China, another Communist country.¶ 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-
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
25
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.
Now is the time to lift the embargo- widespread support.
Bandow, former assistant to President Reagan, 2012
[Doug, 12-11-2012, The CATO Institute, “Time to End the Cuba Embargo,”
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo EJH]
But the political environment is changing. A younger, more liberal generation of Cuban Americans with
no memory of life in Cuba is coming to the fore. Said Wayne Smith, a diplomat who served in Havana:
“for the first time in years, maybe there is some chance for a change in policy.” And there are now
many more new young Cuban Americans who support a more sensible approach to Cuba.¶ Support
for the Republican Party also is falling. According to some exit polls Barack Obama narrowly carried the
Cuban American community in November, after receiving little more than a third of the vote four years
ago. He received 60 percent of the votes of Cuban Americans born in the United States.¶ Barack
Obama increased his votes among Cuban Americans after liberalizing contacts with the island. He also
would have won the presidency without Florida, demonstrating that the state may not be essential
politically.¶ Today even the GOP is no longer reliable. For instance, though Republican vice-presidential
nominee Paul Ryan has defended the embargo in recent years, that appears to reflect ambition rather
than conviction. Over the years he voted at least three times to lift the embargo, explaining: “The
embargo doesnt work. It is a failed policy. It was probably justified when the Soviet Union existed and
posed a threat through Cuba. I think its become more of a crutch for Castro to use to repress his
people. All the problems he has, he blames the American embargo.Ӧ 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 embargo. He also could use his authority to relax sanctions by, for instance, granting more licenses
to visit the island.
Now is the time to lift the Embargo for humanitarian and diplomatic reasons.
Trani, University Distinguished Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, 2013
[Eugene, 6-23-2013, Timesdispatch.com, “End the Embargo on Cuba,”
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnists-blogs/guestcolumnists/end-the-embargo-on-cuba/article_ba3e522f-8861-5f3c-bee9000dffff8ce7.html EJH]
My own trip to Cuba reinforced the call for such actions. We spent four days visiting with many
different kinds of groups in Havana, community projects, senior citizens, a health clinic, youth
programs, artist and recording facilities, musical ensembles, historic sites such as Revolution Square and
the Ernest Hemingway house and an environmental training facility, and not once did we hear anger
toward the United States or the American people.¶ What we heard was puzzlement about the
embargo and strong feelings that it was hurting the people of Cuba. In fact, since the collapse of the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
26
Soviet Union, the absolute poverty rate has increased significantly in Cuba. It was also evident that
there is visible decline in major infrastructure areas such as housing.¶ Today, there seem to be both
humanitarian and economic factors, particularly with the significant growth of the non-governmental
section of the economy that could factor in a change in American policy. There is also a major
diplomatic factor in that no other major country, including our allies, follows our policy.¶ What a positive
statement for American foreign policy in Latin America and throughout the world it would be for the
United States to end its embargo and establish normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. We would be
taking both a humanitarian course of action and making a smart diplomatic gesture. The time is right
and all our policy makers need is courage to bring about this change.
Things are looking up for lifting the embargo.
Lloyd, PHD in Political Science, 2011
[Delia, Summer 2011, Politics Daily, “Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba
Embargo,”http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cubaembargo/ EJH]
Back when I worked as a producer for Chicago Public Radio in the early part of the decade, we would
periodically revisit the question of whether to do a show on Cuba. Every year, the same anniversaries
would roll around -- Fidel Castro's 1959 overthrow of the U.S.-backed Batista government, President
Kennedy's failed 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion -- and every year we'd invariably conclude that things really
weren't changing enough to warrant an update.¶ What a difference a few years makes. As my
colleague Luisita Lopez Torregrosa reported back in May, the Obama administration has been working
quietly behind the scenes with the Cuban government on a host of bilateral issues. In May 2009,
President Obama lifted travel restrictions for Cuban Americans wishing to visit their relatives on the
island. ¶ This summer, that apparent thaw in Cuban-American relations accelerated dramatically. In
June, the House Agriculture Committee voted to reverse a decades-long ban on U.S. citizens traveling
to Cuba and to ease restrictions on the sale of American commodities there. In July, two senators
followed suit by announcing a bipartisan bill that would also facilitate travel to Cuba, which they
claimed enjoyed two-thirds support in Congress. And last week, the White House reportedly stepped
into the fray again, with signals that the president would issue an executive order to further open
existing travel opportunities for American students, teachers and researchers, possibly before Labor
Day. For its part, Cuba released 52 of its 167 political prisoners in a July deal brokered by the Catholic
Church, which many see as an important precursor for normalization of relations between the two
countries.¶ It's not yet clear what all of this will amount to. The congressional bills still need to wend
their way through several other committees, where they may face entrenched opposition to altering
Cuba policy, especially on the long-standing trade embargo. And even the presidential order (if it comes)
will only return Cuban policy to where it was under President Clinton after a decade of more severe
restrictions under President Bush.¶ Still, all of this has lots of people speculating that there's a sea
change afoot in U.S.-Cuban relations, one that has the potential to not only ease travel restrictions
but possibly even overturn the embargo itself.
Cuba has already shifted away from communism and we have the opportunity now to
become their biggest trading partner.
Mowry, attorney for 2 major law firms, 1999
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
27
David, 1999, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, “Lifting the Embargo Against Cuba
Using Vietnam as a Model: A Policy Paper for Modernity” Volume 29 EJH]
Political and economic life in Cuba is undergoing certain transformation. Pressed by the severing of its
Soviet economic lifeline, the regime of Cuban President Fidel Castro has come to the recognition that it
can no longer remain isolated from the global economy . . . The forces now at work in Cuba have
created an opportunity for the island's reemergence that may be unprecedented since the Castro
revolution nearly 35 years ago. n179¶ This attitude is reinforced by the Cuban Government's actions
over the last several years. In 1995, the Cuban Government had entered into 212 joint ventures,
forming partnerships with Spanish companies, Mexican investors, Canadian firms, British companies,
and Israeli vendors. n180 This was seen as a clear shift away from the centrally planned economy of a
hardline Communist ideology. n181¶ Previously in Cuba, 80% of the total arable land, suitable for
farming, was in the state's hands; today, that number has reversed, with 80% of farm land in the
hands of farming cooperatives. n182 These agrarian reforms follow the model used in Vietnam to
transfer property from the state's control: cooperatives are allowed use of the land in return for 50% of
the profits. n183 Cuban sugar exports are still one of the main revenue producers for the economy.
n184 One commentator has noted, however, that the true "bottleneck" to Cuban recovery is Cuba's lack
of fuel. n185 In 1986, 98% of the 13 million tons of [*256] oil used in Cuba was imported from the Soviet
Union. n186 In 1992, however, imports dropped to less than two million tons with Cuba's own domestic
production for 1993 at slightly over one million tons. n187 Though certainly an indication of the
economic problems that Cuba faces, it is not truly counter-indicative of the growth that Cuba has
enjoyed. The United States is the only major country that is not investing in Cuba; Canada, Mexico, the
U.K., and other trading partners of the United States openly invest and trade with Cuba. One scholar
has noted that the United States could become Cuba's largest trading partner in the region, once the
sanctions have been lifted. n188
We have a unique opportunity now to lift the embargo- we should take it- laundry list.
Creamer, political organizer and strategist, 2011
[Robert, 1-18-2011, The Huffington Post, “Changes in US Policy Good First Step—But
it’s Time to Normalize Relations,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robertcreamer/changes-in-us-cuba-policy_b_810161.html EJH]
The changes in U.S. Cuba policy announced Friday by the Obama administration represent a
welcome first step in changing the failed half-century old policy that has sought to bring change in
Cuba by isolating the island nation from the United States.¶ ¶ The administration announced that within the next two
¶
weeks it would make it easier for religious and academic organizations to send delegations to Cuba; return regulations governing people-topeople trips to Cuba to those that pertained during the Clinton Administration; and expand the number of airports that can be used by tour
operators as embarkation points to the island.¶ ¶ In addition, it expanded the amount of money that can be sent by Americans to ordinary
Cuban citizens.¶ ¶ Administration spokespeople explained that all of these steps were taken to strengthen Cuban civil society. They will certainly
the time has come to completely normalize relations with Cuba, end our economic
embargo. Here's why:¶ ¶ 1). Our policy of isolating Cuba has failed to bring change to Cuba. Fidel Castro and
have that effect.¶ ¶ In fact,
his successor Raul Castro, have outlasted presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and
two years of the Obama Administration.¶ ¶ The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting to get a different result.
By that definition, the past policy of attempting to isolate Cuba was, to put it charitably, daft.¶ ¶ This failed approach to Cuba was originally
justified as part of the Cold War policy of "containment" of the Soviet Union. That policy has now outlasted the Soviet Union by over two
decades.¶ ¶ A shooting war in Vietnam in which almost 50,000 Americans were killed has come and gone. Vietnam is now a reliable U.S. trading
partner and favorite tourist destination, but the policy of isolating Cuba -- with which we have never had a violent conflict -- remains.¶ ¶ Richard
Nixon long ago made peace with China which, though still an officially Communist country, is now one of our most crucial trading partners and
holds much of our country's debt. But our policy of isolating relatively tiny Cuba -- just 90 miles from our shore -- continues.¶ ¶ Of course one of
the reasons for the failure of this ancient policy is that it was long ago abandoned by every other country in the world. Canadians vacation at
Cuban resorts. South Americans sell Cuban agricultural products. Our European allies all have friendly relations, but our policy of isolating Cuba
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
28
persists.¶ ¶ 2). The
only real accomplishment of past isolationist policies toward Cuba was to restrict the
rights of U.S. citizens. Even after the changes announced Friday, most ordinary Americans are still
prevented from traveling to Cuba. It is the only place on earth to which our own government prevents
us from traveling. It is the freedom of Americans that is being abridged -- and we should be just as outraged by
that limitation on our freedom as we are by a gag order on our freedom of speech or an abridgment of our freedom of religion.¶ ¶ What is
particularly galling is that past restrictions on our freedom to travel to Cuba have actually helped limit the opening of Cuban society that is its
alleged rationale. Want to open up Cuban society? Then engage them in travel and trade. Invite their students to the United States and
encourage our students to study in their universities. Encourage cultural exchanges, baseball games, soccer tournaments. The new policy
begins to do those things, and it's about time.¶ ¶ But to the extent it persists, the policy of isolating Cuba and limiting American travel there not
only limits our freedom -- it actually prevents the presumed goal of our policy -- to open up Cuba.¶ ¶ 3).
By maintaining our
economic embargo we penalize the American economy and cost American jobs.¶ ¶ Our economic "boycott"
does not so much prevent Cuba from getting the things its needs (though it definitely makes the lives of ordinary Cubans more difficult), as it
prevents American companies and farmers from selling them American products.¶ ¶ Creating
American jobs should be our
government's number one priority yet the Cuban embargo prevents the sales of American-made
products to a customer that would be ready and willing to buy. The result? Other countries sell Cuba the same
products and benefit by the creation of jobs in their countries rather than the United States. ¶ ¶ 4). Our failure to normalize
relations with Cuba undermines American interests throughout the world -- and particular in Latin
America.¶ ¶ U.S. policy towards Cuba has been a major sore point with other countries in Latin
America, who view it as a vestige of Yankee paternalism toward the entire region. And it is used by those who want to harm America as
another piece of anti-American propaganda.¶ ¶ Far from isolating Cuba, we have isolated ourselves. Virtually all of
America's major allies have normal economic and political relationships with Cuba. Last year, the United Nations General Assembly voted for
the seventeenth time -- in seventeen years -- to condemn our economic embargo of Cuba -- this time by a vote of 185 to 3.¶ ¶ In December the
thirty-three Caribbean and Latin American nations that are members of the Rio Group voted to give Cuba full membership and called on the
U.S. to end the embargo.¶ ¶ 5). Domestic
political support for the embargo -- especially among Cuban
Americans in Florida -- has crumbled.¶ ¶ The proximate political reason for our past Cuba policy has been the large Cuban
American voter block in southern Florida. Many Cuban Americans emigrated here immediately after the Cuban Revolution half a century ago
and were virulently anti-Castro.¶ ¶ In fact, with the Republican takeover of the House, hard line anti-Cuba Congresswoman Illeana Ros-Lehtinen
is now the Chair of the House Committee on International Relations. She works with a well organized hard-line lobby, that has raised a large
financial war chest to punish Members of Congress who support changing our relations with Cuba. But Ros-Lehtinen and her hard line allies are
increasingly isolated in the Cuban American community itself.¶ ¶ Polls now show that 67 percent of Cuban Americans support allowing all
Americans to travel to Cuba (Bendixen poll: Conducted April 14-16, 2009 -- Cuban Americans only).¶ ¶ The Obama Administration's recent
announcement of limited changes in Cuban travel policy is overwhelmingly supported by Cuban Americans. A December poll showed a strong
majority of Florida voters (67 percent) and Florida's Cuban American voters (59 percent) support permitting Americans to visit Cuba for limited
purposes such as academic exchanges, travel by religious and cultural groups, athletic events and research missions.¶ ¶ The same poll showed
that Cuba policy is far from the most important issue affecting the votes of Cuban Americans today. In an open-ended question asking Florida
Cuban Americans which issues would be most important in determining their vote for President in 2012, the economy was first (45 percent)
and jobs was second (13 percent). Less than one percent of Cuban voters mentioned Cuba in any way.¶ ¶ When asked if they would be more or
less likely to support President Obama if he restored full diplomatic relations, 28 percent of Florida Cuban Americans said it would make them
more likely and 29 percent said less likely. In other words, the Cuba issue has ceased to be a factor in determining the votes of the majority of
Florida Cuban Americans.¶ ¶ In fact, another
poll of Cuban Americans taken last November showed 55 percent of
Cuban Americans favored lifting the embargo.¶ ¶ A massive array of organizations has welcomed the Administration's new
initiatives and support further change. The Catholic Church, both in Cuba and the United States has repeatedly called for an end to the
economic embargo.¶ ¶ Friday, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) praised the Administration's actions. The Chairman of
the USCCB, Bishop Howard J. Hubbard of Albany, New York, issued a statement that said:¶ ¶ These needed new policies are modest but
important steps towards advancing our hopes for a better relationship between our people and the people of Cuba, a relationship which holds
great promise of fostering positive and real change in Cuba.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
29
Inherency—Lift Inevitable
The end to the embargo is inevitably coming anyways, the aff just speeds it up
Marquez, Writer for the Orlando Sentinel, 02
(Myriam April 2002, The Orlando Sentinel, “End to embargo of Cuba is inevitable” http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2002-0417/news/0204160441_1_castro-regime-embargo-cuban-regime MG)
An end to the embargo is inevitable, if not all of it then most of it. Congress already has been trying to chip
away at its effects, trying to lift the travel ban, pushing for more sales of food and grains to Havana. I can list all
the moral reasons we should uphold the embargo against a regime that quashes the human spirit, but I also can list all the practical
reasons the embargo has been a convenient weapon for Castro to use to build up nationalistic pride. I'm
not talking about the regime's billboards. The irony isn't lost on visitors who see a decaying building with a billboard in front of it
stating: Revolution means construction!
Obama is gradually taking key parts of the embargo out, inevitably it is all going to
disappear
MacAskill, staff member of the guardian, 11
(Ewen 1/15/11 the guardian, “Barack Obama acts to ease US embargo on Cuba”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/15/barack-obama-us-embargo-cuba MG)
Barack Obama has eased America's long-standing embargo on Cuba, allowing many Americans to travel there for
the first time and increasing the amounts that they can invest in the island.¶ Other changes announced by the president will allow all
US international airports to accept flights to and from Cuba; at present, chartered flights are restricted to Miami and a handful of other
airports. The moves represent an important step to rapprochement between the US and Cuba.¶ Almost as soon as Fidel Castro's
movement took power in the 1959 revolution, the US began an embargo that it has maintained ever since.¶ Relations, though still
tentative, have improved since Castro gave up the leadership in favour of his brother Raul, the accession
of Obama to the presidency, and the release of some political prisoners in Cuba.¶ The move will help
Obama's standing with the American left.¶ In a lengthy press release yesterday evening, the White House said: "President Obama has
directed the secretaries of state, treasury and homeland security to take a series of steps to continue efforts to reach out to the Cuban
people in support of their desire to freely determine their country's future."¶ It added: "The president has directed that changes be
made to regulations and policies governing: purposeful travel; non-family remittances; and US airports supporting licensed charter
flights to and from Cuba. These measures will increase people-to-people contact; support civil society in Cuba; enhance the free flow of
information to, from, and among the Cuban people; and help promote their independence from Cuban authorities."¶ The changes
reverse stricter measures imposed by George Bush, who courted the anti-Castro Cuban-Amerian vote
in Florida in 2000 and again in 2004, and come on top of those Obama made in 2009 that helped
reunite divided Cuban families, improved communication between the countries and helped
humanitarian aid to the island.¶ Obama's move is made by presidential order and cannot be blocked
by Congress. But only Congress can lift the embargo.¶ Such was the strength of the Cuban-American anti-Castro vote
in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s that there was little serious challenge to it. But a younger generation of Cuban-Americans is less fixated
by Castro and his espousal of communism during the cold war.¶ Most Americans are in effect banned from Cuba because it is an
offence to spend money on the island. Under the changes, students and academic staff, religious groups and
others will be free to visit, and educational exchanges are to be promoted.¶ Americans will be allowed
to send up to $500 to support private economic and other activities, though not any involving the
Cuban Communist party or its members.¶ On airports, the White House said: "To better serve those who seek to visit
family in Cuba and engage in other licensed purposeful travel, the president has directed that regulations governing the eligibility of US
airports to serve as points of embarkation and return for licensed flights to Cuba be modified." All US international airports can apply
to service flights to and from Cuba.
Obama is already on his way to removing the entire embargo
Shear, Columnist at The Washington Post, 09
(Michael 4/13/13 The Washington Post, “Obama Lifts Some Restrictions on Cuba”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/04/13/obama_to_lift_cuba_travel_rest.html MG)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
30
Obama is lifting some restrictions on Cuban Americans' contact with Cuba and allowing U.S.
telecom companies to operate there, opening up the communist island nation to more cellular and satellite service, White
House press secretary Robert Gibbs announced at his regular news briefing today.¶ The decision does not lift the trade
embargo on Cuba but eases the prohibitions that have restricted Cuban Americans from visiting their
relatives and has limited what they can send back home.¶ It also allows companies to establish fiberoptic and satellite links between the United States and Cuba and will permit U.S. companies to be
licensed for roaming agreements in Cuba.¶ Communications of those kinds have been prohibited under tough rules put in
President
place by George W. Bush's administration to pressure for democratic change in the island nation.¶ But under the new policy promoted
by Obama, satellite radio companies and television providers will also be able to enter into transactions necessary to provide service to
Cuban citizens.¶ It will also provide an exception to the trade embargo to allow personal cell phones, computes and satellite receivers
to be sent to Cuba.¶ "All who embrace core democratic values long for a Cuba that respects the basic human, political and economic
rights of all of its citizens," Gibbs said. "President Obama believes the measure he has taken today, will help make that goal a reality."¶
As a candidate, Obama promised to seek closer relations with Cuba, and courted Cuban voters in the key
state of Florida. As president, he has signaled that he intends to move toward a greater openness.¶ Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.),
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, praised the move. "President Obama has made the right call. . . ," he said in a statement
this afternoon. "These changes are both compassionate and responsive to reality."¶ A White House aide said the president
believes that democratic change will come to the Cuban nation more quickly if the United States
reaches out to the people of Cuba and their relatives in the United States.¶ But the move is highly
controversial, especially among those who supported Bush's hardline policy and view the restrictions as a way of spurring political
change.
Companies think that the embargo is inevitably going to be lifted
Dillon, Columnist at the New York Times, 95
(Sam 8/27/95 The New York Times, “COMPANIES PRESS CLINTON TO LIFT EMBARGO ON CUBA”
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/27/world/companies-press-clinton-to-lift-embargo-on-cuba.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm MG)
A growing number of American businesses have for the first time begun pressing Washington to
reconsider the trade embargo against Cuba, complaining that it forces them to stand by as foreign
competitors lock up an attractive emerging market.¶ A handful of corporate executives have spoken out publicly
against the embargo in recent months, and others have testified before Congress. But most of the pressure has come in private
meetings with Clinton Administration officials.¶ The emergence of a fledgling private-sector lobby against the Cuban embargo adds an
influential new element to a debate in which economic interests have taken a back seat to political ideology.¶ "Pressure is growing," a
Clinton Administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Businessmen are expressing interest in a transition in
Cuba and complaining that all the deals down there are being cut by foreign competitors. There's a very high degree of business
interest in Cuba."¶ So far, Clinton Administration officials have responded only by restating long-held positions, as when Alexander
Watson, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, recently came under questioning on Cuba after giving a pep talk on
hemispheric trade to an audience of corporate executives at the State Department.¶ "The Europeans and the Asians are knocking on
the door in Latin America," Mr. Watson warned. "The game is on and we can compete effectively, but it will be a big mistake if we
leave the game to others."¶ Eric Williams, managing director for Latin American sales for Federal Express, asked, "Do your comments
on free trade apply to Cuba?"¶ "No, no," Mr. Watson said. "That simply can't be, not for now."¶ John D. Tessier, a Connecticut
consultant who specializes in Latin America, waded in. "Isn't there some incongruity on our policy toward the Communist world?" he
asked. "Why do we have one policy toward North Korea, another for Vietnam, another for China, but complete coldness toward
Cuba?"¶ "Cuba is a special case," Mr. Watson responded. "This Administration will maintain the embargo until major democratic
changes take place in Cuba. Then, and only then, will the United States respond with carefully calibrated steps. And that's where we
are."¶ Perhaps the most outspoken critic of the embargo among corporate executives has been Dwayne O. Andreas, chairman of
Archer Daniels Midland, the giant grain processor in Decatur, Ill.¶ "Our embargo has been a total failure for 30 years," Mr.
Andreas said in a June interview with CNN. "We ought to have all the Americans in Cuba doing all the business they can. It's time for a
change."¶ Jose Cardenas, a spokesman for the Cuban-American National Foundation, the powerful anti-Castro lobby, acknowledged
that business interest in Cuba had increased. "There are always a few people who are willing to make a buck -- and the moral
ramifications be damned," he said. "But most people know that stable business conditions will not exist in Cuba as long as Fidel Castro
is in power. And when it comes down to it, these businessmen won't bleed for the issue."¶ Even as executives like Mr. Andreas are
urging an end to the embargo, a Republican bill in Congress would tighten it considerably. The bill, sponsored by Senator Jesse Helms
of North Carolina and Representative Dan Burton of Indiana, would, among other measures, punish foreign countries and companies,
including subsidiaries of American companies, that trade with Cuba.¶ The Clinton Administration has threatened to veto the bill, partly
because of a provision that would allow thousands of Cuban exiles to sue the Cuban Government in Federal courts in the United States
to recover properties that have been expropriated since the 1959 revolution. Administration officials said such lawsuits could
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
31
overwhelm the courts with dubious new litigation.¶ Administration officials say the threat of a tighter embargo has actually focused the
attention of the business executives on the issue, and drawn more open expressions of disfavor. ¶ John S. Kavulich, president of the
U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, which works with the cooperation of the Castro Government to disseminate commercial
information about Cuba, said 1995 had brought an increase in the number of executives scouting out Cuba, even above 1994, when he
said more than 500 representatives of American businesses visited there.¶ More than 100 of the American business representatives
who have visited Cuba have signed "letters of intent" with state-owned businesses, outlining areas of potential cooperation if trade
relations are normalized, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, Cuba's delegate to the United Nations, said in an interview. ¶ The Clinton
Administration's decision on May 2 to repatriate Cuban boat people, reversing three decades of immigration policy and angering the
most conservative Cuban exile organizations, has led some executives to conclude that the Administration is rethinking its Cuba
policy.¶ Many executives say they sense that change may be coming -- despite repeated Administration declarations to the contrary.
Ron Perelman, who owns Revlon as well as the Consolidated Cigar Corporation, predicted in a recent interview with the magazine Cigar
Aficionado that the embargo would be lifted within five years.¶ "We think it's inevitable," said Thomas J.
Polski, a spokesman for Carlson Companies, which owns the Radisson Hotel chain and a Caribbean cruise liner. "We
see Cuba as an exciting new opportunity -- the forbidden fruit of the Caribbean."¶ Others question how rapidly change will
come. John E. Howard, international policy director at the United States Chamber of Commerce, which opposes the embargo, said
American corporations were not yet as active on Cuba as they were in the lobbying campaign that led to the normalization of relations
with Vietnam in February.
Obama is already lifting part of it, once part is lifted, the rest will soon follow
Lane, writer for RedState, 09
(Moe 8/12/09 RedState, “End of the Cuban Embargo?” http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/04/12/end-of-the-cuba-embargo/
MG)
The Fifth Summit of the Americas is coming up next week, on April 17-19 in Trinidad-Tobago. The Summit’s theme is “Securing Our
Citizens’ Future by Promoting Human Prosperity, Energy Security and Environmental Sustainability.” It will be interesting to watch what
the Obama administration has planned for the Summit regarding Cuba.¶ As readers may recall, last February the Lugar Report
concluded that “progress could be attained by replacing conditionality with sequenced engagement, beginning with narrow areas of
consensus that develop trust,” and recommended changing US policy towards Cuba. Following the report, in March the omnibus
spending bill changed travel restrictions on American citizens with family in Cuba to once a year, and last week the Wall Street Journal
reported that President Obama plans to lift U.S. restrictions on Cuba, allowing Cuban-Americans to visit families there as
often as they like and to send them unlimited funds.¶ If you read up on the WSJ article, the Lugar Report, and the Cuban-American
National Foundation’s white paper on the topic, one thing becomes clear: our Cuba policy is a mess, and it’s one that every President
since Eisenhower has contributed to, usually because of domestic concerns. Fidel Castro had this amazing ability to seriously
discommode American Presidents at every possible opportunity, and now it’s apparently Obama’s turn. ¶ The problem here is
that the President is going to have to somehow remove loosen restrictions on Cuban-American
contacts without at the same time ending the embargo… which, in my personal opinion, can’t be done. And
ending the embargo is going to be problematical, for two reasons; first, the generally rotten human rights record that Cuba has when it
comes to political dissidents will make the normalization process awkward. Second, no American President wants to go down in the
history books as the one who finally gave in and admitted that Fidel won. This is a larger issue than it looks, especially since the Castro
regime has been taking advantage of this reluctance for decades.¶ Should we end the embargo? Well, we’ve traded with worst
regimes, and I don’t think that the current system is doing what we want it to. Do I think that doing so will cause a stink? Very much so.
Is it fair that most of it will slop onto the current administration? Not especially. Do I personally care? ¶ After the embarrassing way that
the CBC delegation reacted in their recent visit, not in the slightest.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Advantages**
32
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Latin American Relations**
33
34
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
1AC – Module
35
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
UQ – Brink
The US isn’t working towards better Latin American relations now
Lehmann, Radio 5/30
(Catalina, Talk Radio News Service, Officials: Obama Has Yet To Improve U.S.-Latin America Relations,
http://www.talkradionews.com/us/2013/05/30/officials-obama-has-yet-to-improve-u-s-latin-americarelations.html, May 30th 2013, EB)
Latin America, particularly South America, has experienced unprecedented political change in the past
15 years said officials who discussed the issue during a briefing held by the Center for Economic Policy
and Research. The briefing analyzed how the Obama administration has responded to the region’s
leftward shifting of political dynamics. In the past, during the Bush administration, efforts were made
to isolate and suppress left-leaning political movements in Latin America, said the officials. When
President George W. Bush attended the Summit of the Americas in Argentina, his lecture was received
with protests against his administration’s polices. When President Barak Obama attended the Summit in
Columbia, he spoke about the need for “equal partnerships” and “a new chapter of engagement” with
the countries that make up Latin America. Leaders such as President Hugo Chavez had a new sense of
hope instilled after President Obama’s remarks, said CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot. “When Latin
America’s left presidents watched the campaign of Barack Obama for president in 2008, they thought
that they might finally see a U.S. president who would change Washington’s foreign policy in the
region,” said Weisbrot. However, panelists claimed that up to this point in time, little has been done to
improve U.S.-Latin America relations . “The Obama administration, like that of President Bush, does
not accept that the region has changed, Weisbrot stated. “That goal is to get rid of all of the left-ofcenter governments, partly because they tend to be more independent from Washington.” Panelists
offered recommendations for improving U.S. relations with Latin America. Fellowship of Reconciliation
Task Force on Latin America and the Caribbean Co-director John Lindsay-Poland advised Obama to
continue moving away from the war on drugs by embracing regulation rather than prohibition. He also
advised Obama against using the military to aid domestic law enforcement. Lindsay-Poland also
suggested that the U.S. should stop the flow of assault weapons, other firearms, and ammunition across
the U.S.-Mexico border. Weisbrot added that Obama should focus less on pleasing the American media
since it has a tendency to “demonize” Latin America. “It must be remembered that the editorials in the
newspapers have much more influence, even for members of Congress and other policy makers, than
the news articles, and these are mostly an obstacle to improved relations with Latin America,”
Weisbrot said. Despite the differences between the governments of Latin America and the U.S., the
experts who spoke today all expressed belief that there is still time for the Obama administration to
forge a better relationship with its southern neighbors.
36
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Link – Plan is Key
Plan is key to cooperation with Latin America, whereas status quo leads to conflict in
the Americas
White, Senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, 13
(Robert E., New York Times, 3/7/13, “After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations
With Cuba,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-forgood-neighbors-in-latin-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed 6/24/13, IC)
FOR most of our history, the
United States assumed that its security was inextricably linked to a partnership with
Latin America. This legacy dates from the Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, through the Rio pact, thepostwar treaty that pledged the
United States to come to the defense of its allies in Central and South America.¶ Yet for a half-century, our policies toward our southern
neighbors have alternated between intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities. The
death this week
of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous critic of the United States
among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades — offers an opportunity to restore bonds with
potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity.¶ Throughout his career, the autocratic Mr. Chávez used our
embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped
prop up the rule of Mr. Castro and his brother Raúl, Cuba’s current president. The embargo no longer serves any useful
purpose (if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American
lawmakers in Congress.¶ An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that
the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change
throughout the Americas.¶ I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America
in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The
1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies
that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century.¶ Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it
captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent revolution. Kennedy
reacted to the threat of
continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was
calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from Communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In
hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy’s
focus on Latin America rekindled the promise
of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American
relations.¶ Tragically, after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and “la noche mas
larga” — “the longest night” — began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes
flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free
speech and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of antiCommunism.¶ During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and closed off democratic
alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official
channels to cover up the Salvadoran military’s responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the
Foreign Service.¶ The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy
over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was
dominated by uniformed assassins. We armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes.¶ After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed
to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND
analysts found that United States policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling against social
injustice and state terror. As a result, “we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost
disproportionate to any conventional conception of the national interest.Ӧ Over the subsequent quarter-century, a series of profound political,
social and economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions
like the Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen
as irrelevant by Mr. Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States — which excludes the United
States and Canada — as an alternative.¶ At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Mr. Chávez said that “the
most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire.”¶ Mr. Chávez was masterful
at manipulating America’s antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist
aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities
and labor.¶ Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares
about their consequences. After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin
America’s leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
37
Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Mr. Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.¶ Lula, as he is universally
known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America ,
as it had been since the very early years of the Castro regime.¶ After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to
accomplish by stealth and economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action and porous
boycott succeeded primarily in bringing shame on the United States and turning Mr. Castro into a folk hero.¶ And even now, despite the
relaxing of travel restrictions and Raúl Castro’s announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile
community continues. The fact that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate — Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas
— are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations. (The third member,
Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his power has been
weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.)¶ Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak
nation can prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive?¶ The re-election of President Obama, and the
death of Mr. Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades.
The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders like President Juan Manuel Santos
of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States. The message should be simple: The president is
prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help.¶ Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem
into a multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba achieve a sufficient measure of
democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments.¶ If, however, our
present
policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus
Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia,
the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common
concern would be reduced to a historical footnote.
Plan solves for Latin American relations best—both the US and Latin America use it as
a litmus test for diplomatic exchange
Sheridan, diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, 9
(Mary Beth, The Washington Post, 5/29/09, “U.S. Urged to Relax Cuba Policy to Boost
Regional Relations,” http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-0529/politics/36798831_1_cuba-scholar-oas-members-travel-restrictions, accessed
6/24/13, IC)
The U.S. government is fighting an effort to allow Cuba to return to the Organization of American
States after a 47-year suspension. But the resistance is putting it at odds with much of Latin America as
the Obama administration is trying to improve relations in the hemisphere.¶ Eliminating the Cold Warera ban would be largely symbolic, because Cuba has shown no sign of wanting to return to the OAS,
the main forum for political cooperation in the hemisphere. But the debate shows how central the
topic has become in U.S. relations with an increasingly assertive Latin America. The wrangling over
Cuba threatens to dominate a meeting of hemispheric foreign ministers, including Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton, scheduled for Tuesday in Honduras.¶ "Fifty years after the U.S. . . . made Cuba
its litmus test for its commercial and diplomatic ties in Latin America, Latin America is turning the
tables," said Julia E. Sweig, a Cuba scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. Now, she said, Latin
countries are "making Cuba the litmus test for the quality of the Obama administration's approach to
Latin America."¶ President Obama has taken steps toward improving ties with Cuba, lifting restrictions
on visits and money transfers by Cuban Americans and offering to restart immigration talks suspended
in 2004. But he has said he will not scrap the longtime economic embargo until Havana makes
democratic reforms and cleans up its human rights record. Ending the embargo would also entail
congressional action.¶ Obama is facing pressure to move faster, both from Latin American allies and
from key U.S. lawmakers. Bipartisan bills are pending in Congress that would eliminate all travel
restrictions and ease the embargo.¶ Cuba has sent mixed signals about its willingness to respond to the
U.S. gestures.¶ Latin American leaders say that isolating Cuba is anachronistic when most countries in
the region have established relations with communist nations such as China. The OAS secretary
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
38
general, José Miguel Insulza, has called the organization's 1962 suspension of Cuba "outdated" -- noting
it is based on the island's alignment with a "communist bloc" that no longer exists. However, he has
suggested that OAS members could postpone Cuba's full participation until it showed democratic
reforms.¶
Plan is in concession to all of Latin America—even allies like Colombia and Mexico
have condemned the embargo
Ballvé, writer for the Progressive Media Project, 8
(Teo, NACLA, 12/30/08, “End the Embargo Against Cuba,”
https://nacla.org/news/end-embargo-against-cuba, 6/24/13, IC)
“The embargo is a policy that hasn't worked in nearly 50 years,” Wayne Smith, the former head of
Washington's diplomatic mission in Havana under the Carter administration, recently told the AP. “It's
stupid, it's counterproductive and there is no international support for it.Ӧ For 17 straight years, the
192-member U.N. General Assembly has overwhelmingly approved a non-binding resolution
condemning the U.S. embargo. Only the United States, Israel and Palau voted against the measure in
October.¶ In the United States, the political tide is also turning against the embargo, which would require
Congressional approval to lift.¶ Politicians have traditionally pandered to the Cuban exile community in
Florida as a key — even decisive — voting bloc, giving Cuban-American hardliners essentially a veto over
changes in U.S. policy. But these old guard, militant exiles, who generally left Cuba shortly after the
Castro brothers declared victory, have found their influence waning.¶ A generational and demographic
shift is under way in south Florida that changes the calculus.¶ A poll conducted by Florida International
University a month after the presidential election shows a sea change in Cuban-American opinion. The
poll revealed 55 percent of Cuban-American respondents favored ending the embargo, while 65 percent
said they wanted Washington to re-establish diplomatic relations with Havana.¶ Lifting the embargo
would dramatically improve Washington's ties with the rest of Latin America.¶ On December 8, the
heads of 15 Caribbean nations called on Obama to rescind the embargo: “The Caribbean community
hopes that the transformational change which is under way in the United States will finally relegate that
measure to history,” their statement said.¶ Then on December 17 in Brazil, the leaders of 33 Latin
American countries, including conservative allies of Washington like Colombia and Mexico, convened
for another gathering and unanimously called on Obama to drop the “unacceptable” embargo.¶ At
that summit, Cuban President Raúl Castro even offered to release political prisoners as a gesture to
pave the way for talks between Havana and Washington.¶ If Obama moves to lift the embargo, it
would send a bold statement that his administration is serious about writing a truly new chapter in
U.S. relations with Cuba — and the rest of Latin America.¶
Cuba is a key sticking point between US-Latin American relations, which are crucial to
US economy and global problems
Inter-American Dialogue, leading US center for policy analysis, exchange, and
communication on issues in Western Hemisphere Affairs, 12
(4/2012, Inter-American Dialogue“REMAKING THE RELATIONSHIP: The United States
and Latin America,”
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, p. 2-3,
accessed 6/24/13, IC)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
39
In part as a result of these shifts, US-Latin American relations have grown ¶ more distant . The quality
and intensity of ties have diminished . Most countries of the region view the United States as less and
less relevant to their ¶ needs—and with declining capacity to propose and carry out strategies to ¶ deal
with the issues that most concern them .¶ In the main, hemispheric relations are amicable . Open
conflict is rare and, ¶ happily, the sharp antagonisms that marred relations in the past have subsided .
But the US-Latin America relationship would profit from more vitality ¶ and direction . Shared interests
are not pursued as vigorously as they should ¶ be, and opportunities for more fruitful engagement are
being missed . Well developed ideas for reversing these disappointing trends are scarce Some enduring
problems stand squarely in the way of partnership and ¶ effective cooperation . The inability of
Washington to reform its broken ¶ immigration system is a constant source of friction between the
United ¶ States and nearly every other country in the Americas . Yet US officials rarely ¶ refer to
immigration as a foreign policy issue . Domestic policy debates on ¶ this issue disregard the United
States’ hemispheric agenda as well as the ¶ interests of other nations .¶ Another chronic irritant is US
drug policy, which most Latin Americans now ¶ believe makes their drug and crime problems worse .
Secretary of State Hillary ¶ Clinton, while visiting Mexico, acknowledged that US anti-drug programs ¶
have not worked . Yet, despite growing calls and pressure from the region, the ¶ United States has shown
little interest in exploring alternative approaches .¶ Similarly, Washington’s more than half-century
embargo on Cuba, as well ¶ as other elements of United States’ Cuba policy, is strongly opposed by all ¶
other countries in the hemisphere . Indeed, the US position on these troublesome issues—immigration,
drug policy, and Cuba—has set Washington ¶ against the consensus view of the hemisphere’s other 34
governments .¶ These issues stand as obstacles to further cooperation in the Americas . The ¶ United
States and the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean need to ¶ resolve them in order to build
more productive partnerships .¶ There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America
to ¶ pursue more robust ties .¶ Every country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and ¶
expanded economic relations, with improved access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and
energy resources . Even with its current economic problems, the United States’ $16-trillion economy is a
vital market ¶ and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for Latin ¶ America, and it
could contribute more to the region’s economic performance . For its part, Latin America’s rising
economies will inevitably become ¶ more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future .¶ The
United States and many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean ¶ would also gain a great deal by
more cooperation on such global matters ¶ as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and
democracy and human ¶ rights . With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 ¶
million, the cultural and demographic integration of the United States and ¶ Latin America is proceeding
at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis ¶ for hemispheric partnership.
Removing economic sanctions against Cuba would increase relations with Latin
American countries
Lugar ’09 (Richard, 2-23-09, Changing Cuba Policy – “in the United States National
Interest” pg 11-12)
Cuba is important for the United States because of proximity, intertwined history, and culture. Cuba
is important in Latin America
because it is a romanticized symbol of a small country that stood up to the most powerful country in
the world. The Cuban Revolution legitimizes some of the passions that fuel the outrage that many
Latin Americans feel regarding the inequality of their own societies, and for 50 years, rightly or
wrongly, Cuba has ably portrayed itself as having fought this fight for them, as well as for the
downtrodden around the world. During the visit, a Cuban official stated to staff that ‘‘U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
40
goes through Cuba.’’ With the end of the Cold War, however, the GOC does not represent the security threat to the U.S. that it once did. The
USG still has significant grievances with the GOC—mostly, its human rights practices and the stifling of political pluralism and property rights as
well as the lack of adequate compensation for expropriated assets of U.S. firms and individuals. The remaining security issues, on the other
hand, are limited to the potential for a migration crisis provoked by political or economic instability on the island. While Cuba’s alliance with
Venezuela has intentions of influencing regional affairs, the GOC has not been positioned to ably export its Revolution since the collapse of the
Soviet Union forced an end to Cuba’s financial support for Latin American guerrilla movements. The GOC’s program of medical diplomacy,
which exports doctors to developing countries, bolsters the island’s soft power, but does not represent a significant threat to U.S. national
security. Given current economic challenges, any revenue gained from economic engagement with the United States would likely be used for
internal economic priorities, not international activism.¶ Reform
of U.S.-Cuban relations would also benefit our
regional relations. Certain Latin American leaders, whose political appeal depends on the propagation
of an array of anti-Washington grievances, would lose momentum as a centerpiece of these grievances
is removed. More significantly, Latin Americans would view U.S. engagement with Cuba as a
demonstration that the United States understands their perspectives on the history of U.S. policy in
the region and no longer insists that all of Latin America must share U.S. hostility to a 50-year-old
regime. The resulting improvement to the United States’ image in the region would facilitate the
advancement of U.S. interests.
Plan appeases all of Latin America—they see foreign policy towards Cuba as symbolic
of Latin American policy
Goodman, reporter for Bloomberg News, 09
(Joshua, Bloomberg, 4/13/09, “Latin America to Push Obama on Cuba Embargo at
Summit,”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLnOE1ib3E3Y,
accessed 6/24/13, IC)
April 13 (Bloomberg) -- When Barack Obama arrives at the fifth Summit of the Americas this week, Cuba
will be at the heart of the U.S. relationship with the rest of the hemisphere, exactly as it has been for
half a century.¶ While Latin American leaders split on many issues, they agree that Obama should lift
the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba. From Venezuelan socialist Hugo Chavez to Mexico’s probusiness Felipe Calderon, leaders view a change in policy toward Cuba as a starting point for reviving
U.S. relations with the region, which are at their lowest point in two decades.¶ Obama, born six months
before President John F. Kennedy imposed the embargo, isn’t prepared to support ending it. Instead,
he’ll seek to satisfy the leaders at the April 17-19 summit in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, with less
ambitious steps disclosed by the administration today -- repealing restrictions on family visits and
remittances imposed by former President George W. Bush.¶ That would mesh with his stated goal of
changing the perception of “U.S. arrogance” that he attributed to his predecessor in his sole policy
speech on the region last May.¶ “All of Latin America and the Caribbean are awaiting a change in policy
toward Cuba,” Jose Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Washington-based Organization of
American States, said in an interview. “They value what Obama has promised, but they want more.”¶
The policy changes unveiled today also include an expanded list of items that can be shipped to the
island, and a plan to allow U.S. telecommunications companies to apply for licenses in Cuba.¶
Symbolically Important¶ Cuba, the only country in the hemisphere excluded from the 34-nation summit,
is symbolically important to the region’s leaders, many of whom entered politics under military
regimes and looked to Cuba and its longtime leader Fidel Castro, 82, for inspiration and support. Even
though most countries shun the communist policies of Castro and his brother, now-President Raul
Castro, the U.S. alone in the hemisphere rejects diplomatic and trade relations with the island.¶ “Cuba
represents a 50-year policy failure in Latin America and that’s why it’s so important for Obama to
address it now,” says Wayne Smith, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in
Washington, who headed the State Department’s Cuba interest section in Havana from 1979-1982.
41
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
“Unless Obama wants to be booed off the stage, he better come with fresh ideas.”¶ The U.S. president,
47, thinks it would be “unfortunate” if Cuba is the principal theme at the summit and would prefer the
session focus instead on the economy, poverty and the environment, says Jeffrey Davidow, the White
House’s top adviser for the meeting. Obama also understands that he can’t control the discussion and
intends to deal with the other leaders as partners, Davidow told reporters on April 6.¶
US-Cuban Relations Key to US-Latin American Relations
Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and
Director for Latin America Studies, 13
(Julia, 6/23/13, Council Foreign Relaions, “Cuba After Communism”,
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991?cid=rss-fullfeedcuba_after_communism062413&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cfr_
main+(CFR.org+-+Main+Site+Feed), 6/27/13, AL)
In January, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry opened his confirmation hearing by celebrating his close collaboration with Senator John McCain
(R-Ariz.) in overcoming the legacy of war in order to restore U.S. relations with Vietnam. Yet both Kerry and Obama still seem to defer to the
outdated conventional wisdom on Cuba, according to which Washington cannot change its failed policy so long as Cuban Americans in Congress
continue to oppose doing so. Reality, however, is already changing. These legislators' constituents have started voting with their feet and
checkbooks, traveling to the island and sending remittances to family there as never before. Several wealthy Cuban Americans, moreover, are
now talking directly with Havana about large-scale future investments. As a Democrat who won nearly half of Florida's Cuban American vote in
2012, Obama is
in a better position than any of his predecessors to begin charting an end to the United States' 50-year-long
embargo. The geopolitical context in Latin America provides another reason the U.S. government
should make a serious shift on Cuba. For five years now, Obama has ignored Latin America's unanimous disapproval of
Washington's position on Cuba. Rather than perpetuate Havana's diplomatic isolation, U.S. policy embodies the imperial pretensions of a
bygone era, contributing to Washington's own marginalization. Virtually all countries in the region have refused to attend another Summit of
the Americas meeting if Cuba is not at the table. Cuba, in turn, currently
chairs the new Community of Latin American
and Caribbean States, which excludes Washington. The Obama administration has begun laying out what could become a
serious second-term agenda for Latin America focused on energy, jobs, social inclusion, and deepening integration in the Americas. But the
symbolism of Cuba across the region is such that the White House can definitively lead U.S.–Latin
American relations out of the Cold War and into the twenty-first century only by shifting its Cuba
policy
Continuing Embargo leads to military conflict with a Cuba
Amash, writer for international of international affairs at UCSD, 2012
[Brandon, 7-23-12, Prospect, EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, 629-13, GZ]
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
42
The current policy may drag the United States into a military conflict with Cuba. Military conflict may be inevitable in
the future if the embargo’s explicit goal — creating an insurrection in Cuba to overthrow the government
— is achieved, and the United States may not be ready to step in. As Ratliff and Fontaine detail, “Americans are not prepared
to commit the military resources […]” (Fontaine 57), especially after unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much like America’s current situation with isolated
rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, Cuba’s isolation may also lead to war for other reasons, like the American occupation of Guantanamo Bay. These
consequences are inherently counterproductive for the democratization of Cuba and the
improvement of human rights.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
43
Link – Plan Solves Terrorism
So long as we lack trans-border cooperation, terrorist groups will continue to thrive in
Latin America- Latin American cities are key places for recruiting and hiding terrorists.
Abbot, Lieutenant in the U.S. Army, 2004
Philip K, September 2004, Military Review, “Terrorist Threat in The Tri-Border Area:
Myth or Reality” http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/abbott.pdf EJH]
Terrorist groups seek target-rich environments¶ for financial support, safe haven, and recruitment.¶
Six million Muslims inhabit Latin American cities,¶ which are ideal centers for recruiting and hiding¶
terrorists. Ungoverned areas, primarily in the Amazon regions of Suriname, Guyana, Venezuela,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil, present¶ easily exploitable terrain over which to move
people¶ and material. Over-populated Latin American cities¶ are home to many disenfranchised groups
and¶ marginalized communities capable of supporting¶ terrorist activities or fomenting homegrown
terrorism. The Free Trade Zones of Iquique, Chile;¶ Maicao, Colombia; and Colon, Panama, can generate
undetected financial and logistical support for terrorist groups. Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru offer cocaine
as a lucrative source of income. In addition,¶ Cuba and Venezuela have cooperative agreements¶ with
Syria, Libya, and Iran.10¶ The population in the Tri-Border Area is concentrated in three border cities:
Ciudad¶ del Este, Paraguay; Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil; and Iguazu, Argentina. The Arab¶ community of
immigrants that represents a slice of the urban population in the¶ area, mainly Ciudad del Este and Foz
do Iguaçu, is estimated to be nearly 30,000.MILITARY REVIEW l September -October 2004 53¶ Terrorist
groups are flexible, patient, and use globalization to achieve their objectives. Unless its leaders
cooperate with the U.S. National Strategy for¶ Combating Terrorism, Latin America will remain a¶
lucrative target for terrorist funding, recruiting, and¶ safe haven.11
Diplomacy is key to stopping the growing threat of terrorism from Latin America- alQaida has access to nuclear weapons and Latin America has an “open invitation” to
terrorist groups.
Abbot, Lieutenant in the U.S. Army, 2004
Philip K, September 2004, Military Review, “Terrorist Threat in The Tri-Border Area:
Myth or Reality” http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/abbott.pdf EJH]
¶
The new terrorism is more radical, irrational, and¶ difficult to detect. Clear dividing lines once separated¶
terrorists from guerrillas or criminals and homegrown¶ terrorists from state-sponsored terrorists, but these¶ lines have become blurred.20
Terrorist groups like alQaeda now likely have access to weapons of mass¶ destruction and use
extreme methods, as observed¶ during attacks on the World Trade Center and the¶ Pentagon.¶
Economically marginalized and disenfranchised¶ groups are made-to-order for terrorists to exploit.¶ The
piqueteros (picketers) in Argentina, cocaleros¶ (cocaine dealers) in Bolivia, Movimento Sem Terra¶ (Movement of Those Without Land) in Brazil,
and¶ the Pachakutik indigenous peoples in Ecuador, the¶ Bolivarian Circles in Venezuela, and peasants’ groups¶ in Paraguay are ethnically and
economically opCiudad del Este, Paraguay¶ revistaturismo.comMILITARY REVIEW l September -October 2004 55¶ pressed groups whose
destabilizing power is growing, whose leaders are gaining political prominence,¶ and who could be susceptible to terrorism’s appeals.¶ The
TBA’s exact role in attracting terrorist groups¶ is not entirely clear, but Ciudad del Este’s Arab and¶ Muslim community has raised funds through
money¶ laundering, illicit drug and weapons trafficking, smuggling, and piracy, with some of the funds reportedly¶ going to Hezbollah and
Hamas to support terrorist¶ acts against Israel. The FARC also reportedly maintains a fundraising presence in the TBA. This extensive terrorist
financial network also stretches to¶ Margarita Island, Panama, and the Caribbean.¶ The
TBA’s dangerous combination of vast
ungoverned areas, poverty, illicit activity, disenfranchised¶ groups, ill-equipped law-enforcement
agencies and¶ militaries, and fragile democracies is an open invitation to terrorists and their
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
44
supporters. Undeterred¶ criminal activity, economic inequality, and the rise of¶ disenfranchised groups with the
potential to collaborate with terrorists present a daunting challenge.¶ Terrorism today is transnational
and decentralized.¶ International support of a multidimensional counterterrorism strategy is
necessary to defeat it.¶ Colombia’s less-than-successful counternarcotics¶ strategy demonstrates that unilateral action does not¶
necessarily eradicate or eliminate drug trafficking.¶ The same is true of terrorism. Unilateral action in¶ Afghanistan
has not eliminated the global terrorist¶ threat. Without multilateral, cooperative deterrence,¶ terrorist
organizations will simply migrate across porous borders to less scrutinized areas. As long as¶ Lieutenant
Colonel Philip K. Abbott, U.S. Army, is Army Section Chief, United States¶ Military Group, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. He received a B.A. from
Norwich University,¶ an M.A. from Kansas University, and he is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and¶ General Staff College. He has served
in various command and staff positions in the continental United States, Latin America, and Europe.¶ terrorism does not directly affect them,
nations in the¶ TBA
will place economic considerations ahead of¶ security concerns, seek economic
prosperity, and¶ remain reluctant to tighten border controls or place¶ new restrictions on commerce
and transportation.¶ The potential for terrorism in the TBA and elsewhere in Latin America is clearly
no myth. The TBA¶ and several other tri-border areas in Latin America¶ will emerge as ideal breeding grounds for terrorists¶ and those
groups that support them, unless countries¶ in the region make changes in their judicial systems,¶ improve their law-enforcement and military
capabilities, take effective anticorruption measures, and cooperate with each other. The
potential for Middle¶ East terrorists
to operate in the TBA and elsewhere¶ in Latin America warrants closer scrutiny.¶ The United States can only win
the GWOT if it¶ has regional partners ready and willing to take preemptive action and not just wait for the United¶ States to act. Closing down
charities that fund terrorism, rounding up suspected terrorists, and denouncing terrorism is in the regional partners’ selfinterest.21 Only
effective diplomacy can bring this¶ to pass. According to Ambassador J. Cofer Black,¶ DOS Coordinator
for Counterterrorism, “[Diplomacy] is the instrument of power that builds political will and
strengthens international cooperation.¶ Through diplomatic exchanges, we promote¶
counterterrorism cooperation with friendly nations,¶ enhance the capabilities of our allies, take the
war¶ to the terrorists, and ultimately cut off the resources¶ they depend on to survive.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
45
Impact – Laundry List
The impact is extinction --- LA relations key to nuclear deterrence, secure borders,
preventing nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and preventing China, Russia, and Iran
from gaining political influence in Latin America.
Ferkaluk, Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base Wing
Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force, 10
(Brian, Fall 2010, Global Security Studies, “Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage,” pg 12,
ACCESSED June 29, 2013, RJ)
The policy implications for the United States are to maintain the role of a guiding figure in Latin
American developments. The stakes for the US have never been higher. In a region that has a strong
history of domestic terrorism and stratocracy, strong oversight is warranted. The current US
administration’s policy on nuclear deterrence is that the threat of a nuclear attack from a sovereign
state has gone down, but the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists has gone
up. No region of the world is closer to the US or has a greater ease of access to the US border than
Latin America. Therefore, it is vital that the US continue providing antiterrorism training to key Latin
American states, offer economic assistance and encourage mutual cooperation and information
sharing among allied states. Once this is accomplished, Latin American nuclear proliferation will cease
to be a factor in the terrorist activity that threatens each state to this day. The mutual cooperation
will help to diminish the activities of groups like the FARC and the AUC. Furthermore, international
groups such as Al Qaida and Hezbollah will not be able to acquire nuclear weapons should they
develop a stronger presence in the region. A blind eye should also not be turned towards states that
overtly refuse to cooperate in the GWOT. States like Venezuela and Nicaragua should not be left to
their own devices. The relationships that are being built with Russia and Iran must also be carefully
monitored. Venezuela may not be very close to a nuclear weapon, but the technology and applied
sciences it receives from both Iran and Russia has the potential to speed up its development. It has
already failed to acquire technology from its neighbors, so the US must continue to solidify its relations
with states like Brazil and Argentina and discourage any relations with Iran. If its leaders and diplomats
can continue to press that issue, it can curb the increase in trade between Latin America and Iran and
end the political and diplomatic connections Iran has been forming in recent years. Above any other
measure, the US must ensure that every Latin American nation knows that it cares about the
development and defense of the region. If that region is secure, the US is secure; and as long as the
region struggles with terrorism and nuclear proliferation, the US will be there to support it in every
way possible.
46
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Impact – Poverty
US- Latin America Relations good- Key to solving poverty and inequality
Barshefsky et. al., senior international partner at WilmerHale in DC, 08,
(Charlene Barshefsky, R. Rand Beers, Alberto Coll, Margaret Crahan, Jose Fernandez,
Francis Fukuyama, Peter Hankim, James Hermon, John Heimann, James Hill, Donna
Hrinak, James Kimsey, Jim Kolbe, Kellie Meiman, Shannon O'Neil, Maria Otero, Arturo
Porzecanski, David Rothkopf, Julia Sweig, 5/2008, Council on Foreign Relations, “USLatin America Relations: A New Direction for a New Reality”,
http://www.cfr.org/mexico/us-latin-america-relations/p16279, 6/30/2013) GM.
Latin America has never mattered more for the United States.¶ The region is the largest foreign
supplier of oil to the United States and a strong partner in the development of alternative fuels. It is
the United States' fastest-growing trading partner, as well as its biggest supplier of illegal drugs. Latin
America is also the largest source of U.S. immigrants, both documented and not. All of this reinforces
deep U.S. ties with the region—strategic, economic, and cultural—but also deep concerns.¶ This report
makes clear that the era of the United States as the dominant influence in Latin America is over.
Countries in the region have not only grown stronger but have expanded relations with others, including
China and India. U.S. attention has also focused elsewhere in recent years, particularly on challenges in
the Middle East. The result is a region shaping its future far more than it shaped its past.¶ At the same
time Latin America has made substantial progress, it also faces ongoing challenges. Democracy has
spread, economies have opened, and populations have grown more mobile. But many countries have
struggled to reduce poverty and inequality and to provide for public security.¶ The Council on Foreign
Relations established an Independent Task Force to take stock of these changes and assess their
consequences for U.S. policy toward Latin America. The Task Force finds that the long-standing focus on
trade, democracy, and drugs, while still relevant, is inadequate. The Task Force recommends reframing
policy around four critical areas—poverty and inequality, public security, migration, and energy
security—that are of immediate concern to Latin America's governments and citizens.¶ The Task Force
urges that U.S. efforts to address these challenges be done in coordination with multilateral
institutions, civil society organizations, governments, and local leaders. By focusing on areas of mutual
concern, the United States and Latin American countries can develop a partnership that supports
regional initiatives and the countries' own progress. Such a partnership would also promote U.S.
objectives of fostering stability, prosperity, and democracy throughout the hemisphere.
Poverty outweighs nuclear war
Gilligan, Harvard Psych Prof 96
(James, Dept. of Psych. @ Harvard Med & Dir. of the Center for the Study of Violence Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes p. 191-196,
6-31-13)
You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fill our prisons and mental hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcibly
and constantly reminded of the extreme poverty and discrimination that characterize their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about their
families and friends, you are forced to recognize the truth in Gandhi’s observation that the deadliest form of violence is poverty. Not a day goes
by without realizing that trying to understand them and their virulent behavior in purely individual terms is impossible and wrong-headed. Any
theory of violence, especially a psychological theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisons and hospitals for
the criminally insane must begin with the recognition that these institutions are only microcosms. They are not where the major violence of our
society takes place, and the perpetrators who fill them are far from being the main causes of most violent deaths. Any
approach to a
theory of violence needs to begin with a look at the structural violence of this country. Focusing merely on those
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
47
relatively few men who commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and learning from those structural
causes
of violent death that are far more significant from a numerical or public health, or human, standpoint
By “structural violence” I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who
occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively lower death rates experienced by those who are above
them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstratably large portion of them) are a function of class structure; and that structure is itself a
product of society’s collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am
contrasting “structural” with “behavioral violence,” by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral
actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so
on. Structural violence differs from behavioral violence in at least three major respects The
lethal effects of structural violence
operate continuously rather than sporadically, whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other
forms of behavioral violence occur one at a time. Structural violence operates more or less independently of individual acts;
independent of individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whose decisions may nevertheless have lethal consequences for
others. The
14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000
deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to
the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian
deaths, including those caused by genocide---or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps
575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a
hypothetical nuclear exchange between the
U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence,
which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die
because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths, and
every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were
killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an
ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetuated on the weak
and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a
socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two forms of
violence—structural or behavioral—is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to
effect.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
48
Impact – Democracy
US Latin American relations key create economic cooperation and foster regional
democracy
Hill, President of the JT Hill Group Inc, 8
(James, May 08, CFR-council for foreign relations, “US Latin America Relations”,
http://www.cfr.org/mexico/us-latin-america-relations/p16279, 6/24/13, AL)
The region is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States and a strong partner in the
development of alternative fuels. It is the United States' fastest-growing trading partner, as well as its
biggest supplier of illegal drugs. Latin America is also the largest source of U.S. immigrants, both
documented and not. All of this reinforces deep U.S. ties with the region—strategic, economic, and cultural—
but also deep concerns. At the same time Latin America has made substantial progress, it also faces ongoing challenges.
Democracy has spread, economies have opened, and populations have grown more mobile. But many
countries have struggled to reduce poverty and inequality and to provide for public security. The Task Force urges that U.S. efforts to
address these challenges be done in coordination with multilateral institutions, civil society
organizations, governments, and local leaders. By focusing on areas of mutual concern, the United
States and Latin American countries can develop a partnership that supports regional initiatives and
the countries' own progress. Such a partnership would also promote U.S. objectives of fostering
stability, prosperity, and democracy throughout the hemisphere.
US- Latin American cooperation key to democracy
Arcos et al., Senior Advisor @ The National Defense University’s Center for
Hemispheric Defense Studies, ‘12
(Cresencio, The Inter-American Dialogue, April 2012, "Remaking the Relationship: The
United States and Latin America?”,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf,
6/30/2013, PD)
The democratic outlook in the Americas is on balance positive, particularly when compared with
previous periods and to the rest of the world . Free, competitive elections are regularly held and,
happily, the massive human rights violations associated with earlier periods of authoritarian rule have
passed . Nonetheless, there are fundamental challenges that, if unaddressed, could spread and
become far more serious. These problems need to be dealt with collectively through established
regional mechanisms . Among these is the defense of democracy, an important area for greater
cooperation among the United States, Canada, and Latin America . Today, threats to democratic rule
from the actions of the military, as occurred in the June 2009 coup in Honduras, are rare. More
commonly, elected executives, once in office, centralize power and assume increasing control of
critical institutions, public and private. Checks on presidential authority are, thereby, weakened or
eliminated. Governments in Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have all followed this pattern,
undermining press freedom and other basic rights. Although the Inter-American Democratic Charter
calls for collective action to prevent and repair such transgressions, they have, in fact, been met with
relative silence. Indeed, the charter has rarely been invoked . This inaction stems from the lack of
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
49
consensus in the hemisphere about what constitutes violations of democratic principles and how best
to respond to them. The charter should be reformed to establish mechanisms for redress when elected
executives run roughshod over independent institutions . Although unlikely to be accomplished in the
near future, the long-term goal of the United States and other hemispheric governments should be
agreement on collective actions to hold nations to the standards of the charter. The United States and
Canada cannot be effective if they are the only voices calling for action to defend democracy and
enforce the charter. The United States should pursue a longer-term strategy of consulting and finding
common ground with Latin American and Caribbean governments on the appropriate use of the
charter, which should play an important role in hemispheric affairs.
Democracy promotion is key to US leadership and conflict de-escalation
Lynn-Jones, Editor of International Security for Belfer Center Studies in International
Security, 98
(Sean, “Why the United States Should Spread Democracy,” Center for Science and International Affairs,
Harvard University, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democra
cy.html, 6-30-13)
C. America''s Goal: Liberal Democracy
Given the variety of definitions of democracy and the distinction between democracy and liberalism,
what type of government should the United States attempt to spread? Should it try to spread
democracy, defined procedurally, liberalism, or both? Ultimately, U.S. policies should aim to encourage
the spread of liberal democracy. Policies to promote democracy should attempt to increase the
number of regimes that respect the individual liberties that lie at the heart of liberalism and elect their
leaders. The United States therefore should attempt to build support for liberal principles-many of
which are enshrined in international human-rights treaties-as well as encouraging states to hold free
and fair elections.
Supporting the spread of liberal democracy does not, however, mean that the United States should give
the promotion of liberalism priority over the growth of electoral democracy. In most cases, support for
electoral democracy can contribute to the spread of liberalism and liberal democracy. Free and fair
elections often remove leaders who are the biggest impediments to the spread of democracy. In Burma,
for example, the people would almost certainly remove the authoritarian SLORC regime from power if
they had a choice at the ballot box. In South Africa, Haiti, and Chile, for example, elections removed
antidemocratic rulers and advanced the process of democratization. In most cases, the United States
should support elections even in countries that are not fully liberal. Elections will generally initiate a
process of change toward democratization. American policy should not let the perfect be the enemy of
the good by insisting that countries embrace liberal principles before holding elections. Such a policy
could be exploited by authoritarian rulers to justify their continued hold on power and to delay elections
that they might lose. In addition, consistent U.S. support for electoral democracy will help to bolster the
emerging international norm that leaders should be accountable to their people. Achieving this goal is
worth the risk that some distasteful leaders will win elections and use these victories at the ballot box to
legitimize their illiberal rule.
The United States also should attempt to build support for liberal principles, both before and after other
countries hold elections. Policies that advance liberalism are harder to develop and pursue than those
that aim to persuade states to hold free and fair elections, but the United States can promote liberalism
as well as electoral democracy, as I argue below.
II. The Benefits of the Spread of Democracy
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
50
Most Americans assume that democracy is a good thing and that the spread of democracy will be
beneficial. Because the virtues of democracy are taken for granted, they are rarely fully enumerated and
considered. Democracy is not an unalloyed good, so it is important not to overstate or misrepresent the
benefits of democratization. Nevertheless, the spread of democracy has many important benefits. This
section enumerates how the spread of democracy will improve the lives of the citizens of new
democracies, contribute to international peace, and directly advance the national interests of the United
States.
A. Democracy is Good for the Citizens of New Democracies
The United States should attempt to spread democracy because people generally live better lives under
democratic governments. Compared to inhabitants of nondemocracies, citizens of democracies enjoy
greater individual liberty, political stability, freedom from governmental violence, enhanced quality of
life, and a much lower risk of suffering a famine. Skeptics will immediately ask: Why should the United
States attempt to improve the lives of non-Americans? Shouldn''t this country focus on its own
problems and interests? There are at least three answers to these questions.
First, as human beings, American should and do feel some obligation to improve the well-being of other
human beings. The bonds of common humanity do not stop at the borders of the United States.19 To be
sure, these bonds and obligations are limited by the competitive nature of the international system. In a
world where the use of force remains possible, no government can afford to pursue a foreign policy
based on altruism. The human race is not about to embrace a cosmopolitan moral vision in which
borders and national identities become irrelevant. But there are many possibilities for action motivated
by concern for individuals in other countries. In the United States, continued public concern over human
rights in other countries, as well as governmental and nongovernmental efforts to relieve hunger,
poverty, and suffering overseas, suggest that Americans accept some bonds of common humanity and
feel some obligations to foreigners. The emergence of the so-called "CNN Effect"-the tendency for
Americans to be aroused to action by television images of suffering people overseas-is further evidence
that cosmopolitan ethical sentiments exist. If Americans care about improving the lives of the citizens of
other countries, then the case for promoting democracy grows stronger to the extent that promoting
democracy is an effective means to achieve this end.
Second, Americans have a particular interest in promoting the spread of liberty. The United States was
founded on the principle of securing liberty for its citizens. Its founding documents and institutions all
emphasize that liberty is a core value. Among the many observers and political scientists who make this
point is Samuel Huntington, who argues that America''s "identity as a nation is inseparable from its
commitment to liberal and democratic values."20 As I argue below, one of the most important benefits
of the spread of democracy-and especially of liberal democracy-is an expansion of human liberty. Given
its founding principles and very identity, the United States has a large stake in advancing its core value of
liberty. As Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott has argued: "The United States is uniquely and selfconsciously a country founded on a set of ideas, and ideals, applicable to people everywhere. The
Founding Fathers declared that all were created equal-not just those in Britain''s 13 American coloniesand that to secure the `unalienable rights'' of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, people had the
right to establish governments that derive `their just powers from the consent of the governed.''"21
Third, improvements in the lives of individuals in other countries matter to Americans because the
United States cannot insulate itself from the world. It may be a cliché to say that the world is
becoming more interdependent, but it is undeniable that changes in communications technologies,
trade flows, and the environment have opened borders and created a more interconnected world.
These trends give the United States a greater stake in the fate of other societies, because widespread
misery abroad may create political turmoil, economic instability, refugee flows, and environmental
damage that will affect Americans. As I argue below in my discussion of how promoting democracy
serves U.S. interests, the spread of democracy will directly advance the national interests of the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
51
United States. The growing interconnectedness of international relations means that the United States
also has an indirect stake in the well-being of those in other countries, because developments overseas
can have unpredictable consequences for the United States.
For these three reasons, at least, Americans should care about how the spread of democracy can
improve the lives of people in other countries.
1. Democracy Leads to Liberty and Liberty is Good
The first way in which the spread of democracy enhances the lives of those who live in democracies is
by promoting individual liberty, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom
to own private property.22 Respect for the liberty of individuals is an inherent feature of democratic
politics. As Samuel Huntington has written, liberty is "the peculiar virtue of democracy."23 A democratic
political process based on electoral competition depends on freedom of expression of political views
and freedom to make electoral choices. Moreover, governments that are accountable to the public are
less likely to deprive their citizens of human rights. The global spread of democracy is likely to bring
greater individual liberty to more and more people. Even imperfect and illiberal democracies tend to
offer more liberty than autocracies, and liberal democracies are very likely to promote liberty. Freedom
House''s 1997 survey of "Freedom in the World" found that 79 out of 118 democracies could be
classified as "free" and 39 were "partly free" and, of those, 29 qualified as "high partly free." In contrast,
only 20 of the world''s 73 nondemocracies were "partly free" and 53 were "not free."24
The case for the maximum possible amount of individual freedom can be made on the basis of utilitarian
calculations or in terms of natural rights. The utilitarian case for increasing the amount of individual
liberty rests on the belief that increased liberty will enable more people to realize their full human
potential, which will benefit not only themselves but all of humankind. This view holds that greater
liberty will allow the human spirit to flourish, thereby unleashing greater intellectual, artistic, and
productive energies that will ultimately benefit all of humankind. The rights-based case for liberty, on
the other hand, does not focus on the consequences of increased liberty, but instead argues that all men
and women, by virtue of their common humanity, have a right to freedom. This argument is most
memorably expressed in the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be selfevident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ..."
The virtues of greater individual liberty are not self-evident. Various political ideologies argue against
making liberty the paramount goal of any political system. Some do not deny that individual liberty is an
important goal, but call for limiting it so that other goals may be achieved. Others place greater
emphasis on obligations to the community. The British Fabian Socialist Sidney Webb, for example,
articulated this view clearly: "The perfect and fitting development of each individual is not necessarily
the utmost and highest cultivation of his own personality, but the filling, in the best possible way, of his
humble function in the great social machine."25 To debate these issues thoroughly would require a
paper far longer than this one.26 The short response to most critiques of liberty is that there appears to
be a universal demand for liberty among human beings. Particularly as socioeconomic development
elevates societies above subsistence levels, individuals desire more choice and autonomy in their lives.
More important, most political systems that have been founded on principles explicitly opposed to
liberty have tended to devolve into tyrannies or to suffer economic, political, or social collapse.
2. Liberal Democracies are Less Likely to Use Violence Against Their Own People.
Second, America should spread liberal democracy because the citizens of liberal democracies are less
likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments.27 These two findings
are supported by many studies, but particularly by the work of R.J. Rummel. Rummel finds that
democracies-by which he means liberal democracies-between 1900 and 1987 saw only 0.14% of their
populations (on average) die annually in internal violence. The corresponding figure for authoritarian
regimes was 0.59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%.28 Rummel also finds that citizens of liberal
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
52
democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments. Totalitarian and authoritarian
regimes have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of
civilians in the twentieth century. The states that have killed millions of their citizens all have been
authoritarian or totalitarian: the Soviet Union, the People''s Republic of China, Nazi Germany, Nationalist
China, Imperial Japan, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Democracies have virtually never
massacred their own citizens on a large scale, although they have killed foreign civilians during wartime.
The American and British bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan, U.S. atrocities in Vietnam,
massacres of Filipinos during the guerrilla war that followed U.S. colonization of the Philippines after
1898, and French killings of Algerians during the Algerian War are some prominent examples.29
There are two reasons for the relative absence of civil violence in democracies: (1) Democratic political
systems-especially those of liberal democracies constrain the power of governments, reducing their
ability to commit mass murders of their own populations. As Rummel concludes, "Power kills, absolute
power kills absolutely ... The more freely a political elite can control the power of the state apparatus,
the more thoroughly it can repress and murder its subjects."30 (2) Democratic polities allow opposition
to be expressed openly and have regular processes for the peaceful transfer of power. If all participants
in the political process remain committed to democratic principles, critics of the government need not
stage violent revolutions and governments will not use violence to repress opponents.31
3. Democracy Enhances Long-Run Economic Performance
A third reason for promoting democracy is that democracies tend to enjoy greater prosperity over long
periods of time. As democracy spreads, more individuals are likely to enjoy greater economic benefits.
Democracy does not necessarily usher in prosperity, although some observers claim that "a close
correlation with prosperity" is one of the "overwhelming advantages" of democracy.32 Some
democracies, including India and the Philippines, have languished economically, at least until the last
few years. Others are among the most prosperous societies on earth. Nevertheless, over the long haul
democracies generally prosper. As Mancur Olson points out: "It is no accident that the countries that
have reached the highest level of economic performance across generations are all stable
democracies."33
Authoritarian regimes often compile impressive short-run economic records. For several decades, the
Soviet Union''s annual growth in gross national product (GNP) exceeded that of the United States,
leading Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to pronounce "we will bury you." China has posted doubledigit annual GNP increases in recent years. But autocratic countries rarely can sustain these rates of
growth for long. As Mancur Olson notes, "experience shows that relatively poor countries can grow
extraordinarily rapidly when they have a strong dictator who happens to have unusually good economic
policies, such growth lasts only for the ruling span of one or two dictators."34 The Soviet Union was
unable to sustain its rapid growth; its economic failings ultimately caused the country to disintegrate in
the throes of political and economic turmoil. Most experts doubt that China will continue its rapid
economic expansion. Economist Jagdish Bhagwati argues that "no one can maintain these growth rates
in the long term. Sooner or later China will have to rejoin the human race."35 Some observers predict
that the stresses of high rates of economic growth will cause political fragmentation in China.36
Why do democracies perform better than autocracies over the long run? Two reasons are particularly
persuasive explanations. First, democracies-especially liberal democracies-are more likely to have
market economies, and market economies tend to produce economic growth over the long run. Most of
the world''s leading economies thus tend to be market economies, including the United States, Japan,
the "tiger" economies of Southeast Asia, and the members of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development. Two recent studies suggest that there is a direct connection between
economic liberalization and economic performance. Freedom House conducted a World Survey of
Economic Freedom for 1995-96, which evaluated 80 countries that account for 90% of the world''s
population and 99% of the world''s wealth on the basis of criteria such as the right to own property,
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
53
operate a business, or belong to a trade union. It found that the countries rated "free" generated 81% of
the world''s output even though they had only 17% of the world''s population.37 A second recent study
confirms the connection between economic freedom and economic growth. The Heritage Foundation
has constructed an Index of Economic Freedom that looks at 10 key areas: trade policy, taxation,
government intervention, monetary policy, capital flows and foreign investment, banking policy, wage
and price controls, property rights, regulation, and black market activity. It has found that countries
classified as "free" had annual 1980-1993 real per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (expressed in
terms of purchasing power parities) growth rates of 2.88%. In "mostly free" countries the rate was
0.97%, in "mostly not free" ones -0.32%, and in "repressed" countries -1.44%.38 Of course, some
democracies do not adopt market economies and some autocracies do, but liberal democracies
generally are more likely to pursue liberal economic policies.
Second, democracies that embrace liberal principles of government are likely to create a stable
foundation for long-term economic growth. Individuals will only make long-term investments when
they are confident that their investments will not be expropriated. These and other economic decisions
require assurances that private property will be respected and that contracts will be enforced. These
conditions are likely to be met when an impartial court system exists and can require individuals to
enforce contracts. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has argued that: "The guiding mechanism
of a free market economy ... is a bill of rights, enforced by an impartial judiciary."39 These conditions
also happen to be those that are necessary to maintain a stable system of free and fair elections and to
uphold liberal principles of individual rights. Mancur Olson thus points out that "the conditions that are
needed to have the individual rights needed for maximum economic development are exactly the same
conditions that are needed to have a lasting democracy. ... the same court system, independent
judiciary, and respect for law and individual rights that are needed for a lasting democracy are also
required for security of property and contract rights."40 Thus liberal democracy is the basis for longterm economic growth.
A third reason may operate in some circumstances: democratic governments are more likely to have the
political legitimacy necessary to embark on difficult and painful economic reforms.41 This factor is
particularly likely to be important in former communist countries, but it also appears to have played a
role in the decisions India and the Philippines have taken in recent years to pursue difficult economic
reforms.42
4. Democracies Never Have Famines
Fourth, the United States should spread democracy because the citizens of democracies do not suffer
from famines. The economist Amartya Sen concludes that "one of the remarkable facts in the terrible
history of famine is that no substantial famine has ever occurred in a country with a democratic form
of government and a relatively free press."43 This striking empirical regularity has been overshadowed
by the apparent existence of a "democratic peace" (see below), but it provides a powerful argument
for promoting democracy. Although this claim has been most closely identified with Sen, other scholars
who have studied famines and hunger reach similar conclusions. Joseph Collins, for example, argues
that: "Wherever political rights for all citizens truly flourish, people will see to it that, in due course, they
share in control over economic resources vital to their survival. Lasting food security thus requires real
and sustained democracy."44 Most of the countries that have experienced severe famines in recent
decades have been among the world''s least democratic: the Soviet Union (Ukraine in the early 1930s),
China, Ethiopia, Somalia, Cambodia and Sudan. Throughout history, famines have occurred in many
different types of countries, but never in a democracy.
Democracies do not experience famines for two reasons. First, in democracies governments are
accountable to their populations and their leaders have electoral incentives to prevent mass starvation.
The need to be reelected impels politicians to ensure that their people do not starve. As Sen points out,
"the plight of famine victims is easy to politicize" and "the effectiveness of democracy in the prevention
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
54
of famine has tended to depend on the politicization of the plight of famine victims, through the process
of public discussion, which generates political solidarity."45 On the other hand, authoritarian and
totalitarian regimes are not accountable to the public; they are less likely to pay a political price for
failing to prevent famines. Moreover, authoritarian and totalitarian rulers often have political incentives
to use famine as a means of exterminating their domestic opponents.
Second, the existence of a free press and the free flow of information in democracies prevents famine
by serving as an early warning system on the effects of natural catastrophes such as floods and droughts
that may cause food scarcities. A free press that criticizes government policies also can publicize the true
level of food stocks and reveal problems of distribution that might cause famines even when food is
plentiful.46 Inadequate information has contributed to several famines. During the 1958-61 famine in
China that killed 20-30 million people, the Chinese authorities overestimated the country''s grain
reserves by 100 million metric tons. This disaster later led Mao Zedong to concede that "Without
democracy, you have no understanding of what is happening down below."47 The 1974 Bangladesh
famine also could have been avoided if the government had had better information. The food supply
was high, but floods, unemployment, and panic made it harder for those in need to obtain food.48
The two factors that prevent famines in democracies-electoral incentives and the free flow of
information-are likely to be present even in democracies that do not have a liberal political culture.
These factors exist when leaders face periodic elections and when the press is free to report information
that might embarrass the government. A full-fledged liberal democracy with guarantees of civil liberties,
a relatively free economic market, and an independent judiciary might be even less likely to suffer
famines, but it appears that the rudiments of electoral democracy will suffice to prevent famines.
The ability of democracies to avoid famines cannot be attributed to any tendency of democracies to fare
better economically. Poor democracies as well as rich ones have not had famines. India, Botswana, and
Zimbabwe have avoided famines, even when they have suffered large crop shortfalls. In fact, the
evidence suggests that democracies can avoid famines in the face of large crop failures, whereas
nondemocracies plunge into famine after smaller shortfalls. Botswana''s food production fell by 17% and
Zimbabwe''s by 38% between 1979-81 and 1983-84, whereas Sudan and Ethiopia saw a decline in food
production of 11-12% during the same period. Sudan and Ethiopia, which were nondemocracies,
suffered major famines, whereas the democracies of Botswana and Zimbabwe did not.49 If, as I have
argued, democracies enjoy better long-run economic performance than nondemocracies, higher levels
of economic development may help democracies to avoid famines. But the absence of famines in new,
poor democracies suggests that democratic governance itself is sufficient to prevent famines.
The case of India before and after independence provides further evidence that democratic rule is a key
factor in preventing famines. Prior to independence in 1947, India suffered frequent famines. Shortly
before India became independent, the Bengal famine of 1943 killed 2-3 million people. Since India
became independent and democratic, the country has suffered severe crop failures and food shortages
in 1968, 1973, 1979, and 1987, but it has never suffered a famine.50
B. Democracy is Good for the International System
In addition to improving the lives of individual citizens in new democracies, the spread of democracy
will benefit the international system by reducing the likelihood of war. Democracies do not wage war
on other democracies. This absence-or near absence, depending on the definitions of "war" and
"democracy" used-has been called "one of the strongest nontrivial and nontautological generalizations
that can be made about international relations."51 One scholar argues that "the absence of war
between democracies comes as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international
relations."52 If the number of democracies in the international system continues to grow, the number
of potential conflicts that might escalate to war will diminish. Although wars between democracies and
nondemocracies would persist in the short run, in the long run an international system composed of
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
55
democracies would be a peaceful world. At the very least, adding to the number of democracies would
gradually enlarge the democratic "zone of peace."
1. The Evidence for the Democratic Peace
Many studies have found that there are virtually no historical cases of democracies going to war with
one another. In an important two-part article published in 1983, Michael Doyle compares all
international wars between 1816 and 1980 and a list of liberal states.53 Doyle concludes that
"constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another."54 Subsequent
statistical studies have found that this absence of war between democracies is statistically significant
and is not the result of random chance.55 Other analyses have concluded that the influence of other
variables, including geographical proximity and wealth, do not detract from the significance of the
finding that democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with one another.56
Most studies of the democratic-peace proposition have argued that democracies only enjoy a state of
peace with other democracies; they are just as likely as other states to go to war with
nondemocracies.57 There are, however, several scholars who argue that democracies are inherently
less likely to go to war than other types of states.58 The evidence for this claim remains in dispute,
however, so it would be premature to claim that spreading democracy will do more than to enlarge the
democratic zone of peace.
2. Why there is a Democratic Peace: The Causal Logic
Two types of explanations have been offered for the absence of wars between democracies. The first
argues that shared norms prevent democracies from fighting one another. The second claims that
institutional (or structural) constraints make it difficult or impossible for a democracy to wage war on
another democracy.
a. Normative Explanations
The normative explanation of the democratic peace argues that norms that democracies share preclude
wars between democracies. One version of this argument contends that liberal states do not fight other
liberal states because to do so would be to violate the principles of liberalism. Liberal states only wage
war when it advances the liberal ends of increased individual freedom. A liberal state cannot advance
liberal ends by fighting another liberal state, because that state already upholds the principles of
liberalism. In other words, democracies do not fight because liberal ideology provides no justification for
wars between liberal democracies.59 A second version of the normative explanation claims that
democracies share a norm of peaceful conflict resolution. This norm applies between and within
democratic states. Democracies resolve their domestic conflicts without violence, and they expect that
other democracies will resolve inter-democratic international disputes peacefully.60
b. Institutional/Structural Explanations
Institutional/structural explanations for the democratic peace contend that democratic decision-making
procedures and institutional constraints prevent democracies from waging war on one another. At the
most general level, democratic leaders are constrained by the public, which is sometimes pacific and
generally slow to mobilize for war. In most democracies, the legislative and executive branches check
the war-making power of each other. These constraints may prevent democracies from launching
wars. When two democracies confront one another internationally, they are not likely to rush into
war. Their leaders will have more time to resolve disputes peacefully.61 A different sort of institutional
argument suggests that democratic processes and freedom of speech make democracies better at
avoiding myths and misperceptions that cause wars.62
c. Combining Normative and Structural Explanations
Some studies have attempted to test the relative power of the normative and institutional/structural
explanations of the democratic peace.63 It might make more sense, however, to specify how the two
work in combination or separately under different conditions. For example, in liberal democracies liberal
norms and democratic processes probably work in tandem to synergistically produce the democratic
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
56
peace.64 Liberal states are unlikely to even contemplate war with one another. They thus will have few
crises and wars. In illiberal or semiliberal democracies, norms play a lesser role and crises are more
likely, but democratic institutions and processes may still make wars between illiberal democracies rare.
Finally, state-level factors like norms and domestic structures may interact with international-systemic
factors to prevent wars between democracies. If democracies are better at information-processing, they
may be better than nondemocracies at recognizing international situations where war would be foolish.
Thus the logic of the democratic peace may explain why democracies sometimes behave according to
realist (systemic) predictions.
C. The Spread of Democracy is Good for the United States
The United States will have an interest in promoting democracy because further democratization
enhances the lives of citizens of other countries and contributes to a more peaceful international
system. To the extent that Americans care about citizens of other countries and international peace,
they will see benefits from the continued spread of democracy. Spreading democracy also will directly
advance the national interests of the United States, because democracies will not launch wars or
terrorist attacks against the United States, will not produce refugees seeking asylum in the United
States, and will tend to ally with the United States.
1. Democracies Will Not Go to War with the United States
First, democracies will not go to war against the United States, provided, of course, that the United
States remains a democracy. The logic of the democratic peace suggests that the United States will have
fewer enemies in a world of more democracies. If democracies virtually never go to war with one
another, no democracy will wage war against the United States. Democracies are unlikely to get into
crises or militarized disputes with the United States. Promoting democracy may usher in a more
peaceful world; it also will enhance the national security of the United States by eliminating potential
military threats. The United States would be more secure if Russia, China, and at least some countries in
the Arab and Islamic worlds became stable democracies.
2. Democracies Don''t Support Terrorism Against the United States
Second, spreading democracy is likely to enhance U.S. national security because democracies will not
support terrorist acts against the United States. The world''s principal sponsors of international
terrorism are harsh, authoritarian regimes, including Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and Sudan.65
Some skeptics of the democratic-peace proposition point out that democracies sometimes have
sponsored covert action or "state terrorism" against other democracies. Examples include U.S. actions in
Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, and Chile in 1973.66 This argument does not undermine the claim that
democracies will not sponsor terrorism against the United States. In each case, the target state had
dubious democratic credentials. U.S. actions amounted to interference in internal affairs, but not
terrorism as it is commonly understood. And the perpetrator of the alleged "state terrorist" acts in each
case was the United States itself, which suggests that the United States has little to fear from other
democracies.
3. Democracies Produce Fewer Refugees
Third, the spread of democracy will serve American interests by reducing the number of refugees who
flee to the United States. The countries that generate the most refugees are usually the least
democratic. The absence of democracy tends to lead to internal conflicts, ethnic strife, political
oppression, and rapid population growth-all of which encourage the flight of refugees.67 The spread of
democracy can reduce refugee flows to the United States by removing the political sources of decisions
to flee.
The results of the 1994 U.S. intervention in Haiti demonstrate how U.S. efforts to promote
democratization can reduce refugee flows. The number of refugees attempting to flee Haiti for the
United States dropped dramatically after U.S. forces deposed the junta led by General Raoul Cedras and
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
57
restored the democratically elected government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, even though Haiti''s
economic fortunes did not immediately improve.68
In addition to reducing the number of countries that generate refugees, the spread of democracy is
likely to increase the number of countries that accept refugees, thereby reducing the number of
refugees who will attempt to enter the United States.69
4. Democracies will Ally with the United States
Fourth, the global spread of democracy will advance American interests by creating more potential
allies for the United States. Historically, most of America''s allies have been democracies. In general,
democracies are much more likely to ally with one another than with nondemocracies.70 Even scholars
who doubt the statistical evidence for the democratic-peace proposition, agree that "the nature of
regimes ... is an important variable in the understanding the composition of alliances ... democracies
have allied with one another."71 Thus spreading democracy will produce more and better alliance
partners for the United States.
5. American Ideals Flourish When Others Adopt Them
Fifth, the spread of democracy internationally is likely to increase Americans'' psychological sense of
well-being about their own democratic institutions. Part of the impetus behind American attempts to
spread democracy has always come from the belief that American democracy will be healthier when
other countries adopt similar political systems. To some extent, this belief reflects the conviction that
democracies will be friendly toward the United States. But it also reflects the fact that democratic
principles are an integral part of America''s national identity. The United States thus has a special
interest in seeing its ideals spread.72
6. Democracies Make Better Economic Partners
Finally, the United States will benefit from the spread of democracy because democracies will make
better economic partners. Democracies are more likely to adopt market economies, so democracies
will tend to have more prosperous and open economies. The United States generally will be able to
establish mutually beneficial trading relationships with democracies. And democracies provide better
climates for American overseas investment, by virtue of their political stability and market economies.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
58
Impact – Narcoterror
Latin America cooperation is key to the War on Terror – only be improving relations
can we solve for the militant ideologies of the leftist regimes.
Ferkaluk, Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base Wing
Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force, 10
(Brian, Fall 2010, Global Security Studies, “Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage,” pg 12,
ACCESSED June 29, 2013, RJ)
The policy implications for the United States are that of close surveillance and even closer diplomacy.
Latin America has historically been an area of relative hostility for the US. It is an area prone to
authoritarianism and is an ideal environment for violent ideologies to take root. Because of these
factors, it is potentially susceptible to influence from the enemies of the US. Although it has made
great strides in the last few decades, its tendency toward disunion has made it particularly difficult to
fully mobilize it against terrorist activity. It also means the US cannot afford to ignore Latin America as
a potential battleground in the GWOT. The dramatic pink tide in Latin American politics has
commanded the attention of US foreign policy. If the US does not continue to engage Latin America
with anti-terrorist support, it will quickly become a manifestation of the type of terrorism that has
exploded in the Middle East and the political-revolutionary type of terrorism that has exploded in
Africa. The US must continue to demonstrate to Latin American states that it fully supports their
struggle against leftist guerrillas. It must do this also as delicately as possible. For instance, the US
provided economic and military assistance to El Salvador in its struggle against a leftist guerrilla
insurgency. If the US does not continue to support Latin states who call out for help in their time of
need, they will either be overcome by the revolutionaries that threaten their existence, or they will be
heavily influenced by the more leftist Latin American regimes, spreading their militant ideologies
across the region. The first thing that must be done is the US must pass stronger legislation which
hampers illegal immigration. At the same time it must build the much debated fence along its southern
border. In doing so, it will constrain the illegal drug market that originates in Latin America, making
leftist guerrillas just about incapable of financially sustaining their violent operations. It will also hamper
their efforts to enter the US to exploit any other market that it could potentially live off of. In the
meantime, the US must continue to maintain a presence in every Latin American ally. It must continue
to train Latin governments to conduct better airport security, counterterrorism measures and law
enforcement cooperation. In providing military, and even economic, support, the goal of the US
should be increased cooperation amongst all Latin American states. That way, Latin American allies
will be able to overcome the leftist trends taking place in the region and, most importantly, overcome
the influences of the belligerent states of the region, namely Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela .
The drug market is the best internal link to latin American Narcoterrorism
Ferkaluk, Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base Wing
Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force, 10
(Brian, Fall 2010, Global Security Studies, “Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage,” pg 12,
ACCESSED June 29, 2013, RJ)
In light of Central and South America’s proximity to the United States, both geographically and
politically, more attention must be placed on them in the current War on Terror. Central and South
America, which shall hereto be referred to as Latin America, are no strangers to terrorist activity on
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
59
their soil. On the surface, Latin America does not seem as though it is a region that would have to
struggle with such subversive activity. After all, Latin states do not have significant Muslim populations
for international terrorist networks such as Al Qaida to blend into. Furthermore, unlike Middle Eastern
States, their democratically elected leaders will not hesitate to engage them in military confrontations.
Lastly, their economies are not as easy to establish faceless financial networks as they are in Europe or
the Middle East. However, beneath the surface, Latin America is a porous region, ideal for terrorist
activity to flourish. These factors fall in line with the current administration’s policy of keeping nuclear
weapons out of the hands of terrorists. It has stated that although the threat of a nuclear attack by
sovereign states has gone down, the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists has
gone up. Latin America has not only a history of terrorist activity and stratocracy, but nuclear activity
as well. Although the region is known internationally as a nuclear-free zone, recent developments have
demonstrated that a renewed interest in nuclear weapons development may be on the rise. This will
mean a risk of nuclear materials falling into the hands of domestic or international terrorists is now a
real concern for the US in the region itself. Terrorism in Latin America is almost completely
characterized by domestic, guerrilla insurgents. These insurgents channel their terrorist activity
against the authoritarian democracies they live under. Groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Columbia (FARC) and the United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia (AUC) implement similar tactics to
those of international terrorist groups. These tactics include car bombings, kidnappings and, according
to the Congressional Research Service, “murders of elected officials and attacks against military and
civilian targets in urban and rural areas.” 1 However, although it has tactical similarities to international
terrorist groups, they differ quite profusely in their purpose. Whereas other groups maintain religious
differences as the premise for their activity, domestic Latin American groups have Marxist political and
economic ideologies underlying their activity. Their livelihood comes from the most profitable market
they are capable of exploiting, drug trafficking. This poses a significant and immediate threat to the
United States. The initial threat is the fact that many of these drugs find their way to the US border.
The greater danger lies in what this market is being used to fund, domestic attacks on key leaders of
Latin American states who are key allies of the US and supporters of the GWOT. In many cases, these
groups are further supported by neighboring states who seek to undermine US interests as well as US
allies in the region. These neighboring states have supported terrorist groups more and more in recent
years as a result of a leftward political trend across the region.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
60
Impact – Narcoterror – Brink
Narco Terrorism is the most likely cause of nuclear conflict in Latin America
Ferkaluk, Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base Wing
Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force, 10
(Brian, Fall 2010, Global Security Studies, “Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage,” pg 12,
ACCESSED June 29, 2013, RJ)
In light of Central and South America’s proximity to the United States, both geographically and
politically, more attention must be placed on them in the current War on Terror. Central and South
America, which shall hereto be referred to as Latin America, are no strangers to terrorist activity on
their soil. On the surface, Latin America does not seem as though it is a region that would have to
struggle with such subversive activity. After all, Latin states do not have significant Muslim populations
for international terrorist networks such as Al Qaida to blend into. Furthermore, unlike Middle Eastern
States, their democratically elected leaders will not hesitate to engage them in military confrontations.
Lastly, their economies are not as easy to establish faceless financial networks as they are in Europe or
the Middle East. However, beneath the surface, Latin America is a porous region, ideal for terrorist
activity to flourish. These factors fall in line with the current administration’s policy of keeping nuclear
weapons out of the hands of terrorists. It has stated that although the threat of a nuclear attack by
sovereign states has gone down, the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists has
gone up. Latin America has not only a history of terrorist activity and stratocracy, but nuclear activity
as well. Although the region is known internationally as a nuclear-free zone, recent developments have
demonstrated that a renewed interest in nuclear weapons development may be on the rise. This will
mean a risk of nuclear materials falling into the hands of domestic or international terrorists is now a
real concern for the US in the region itself. Terrorism in Latin America is almost completely
characterized by domestic, guerrilla insurgents. These insurgents channel their terrorist activity
against the authoritarian democracies they live under. Groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Columbia (FARC) and the United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia (AUC) implement similar tactics to
those of international terrorist groups. These tactics include car bombings, kidnappings and, according
to the Congressional Research Service, “murders of elected officials and attacks against military and
civilian targets in urban and rural areas.” 1 However, although it has tactical similarities to international
terrorist groups, they differ quite profusely in their purpose. Whereas other groups maintain religious
differences as the premise for their activity, domestic Latin American groups have Marxist political and
economic ideologies underlying their activity. Their livelihood comes from the most profitable market
they are capable of exploiting, drug trafficking. This poses a significant and immediate threat to the
United States. The initial threat is the fact that many of these drugs find their way to the US border.
The greater danger lies in what this market is being used to fund, domestic attacks on key leaders of
Latin American states who are key allies of the US and supporters of the GWOT. In many cases, these
groups are further supported by neighboring states who seek to undermine US interests as well as US
allies in the region. These neighboring states have supported terrorist groups more and more in recent
years as a result of a leftward political trend across the region.
61
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Impact – Terrorism
Iran is sponsoring terrorism in Latin America – it uses Hezbollah as its proxy
Farah, president of IBI Consultants and senior associate at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, and Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense
of Democracies, 6/26
(Douglas, Mark, 6/26/13, Miami Herald, “Terror and foreign policy,”
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/26/3472275/terrorism-as-an-instrumentof.html, accessed 6/30/13, IC)
Earlier this month, Alberto Nisman of Argentina, the special prosecutor responsible for investigating the Iranian-planned 1994 bombing of a
Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people, handed down a
chilling document detailing Iran’s hand in terrorist
activities in Latin America and the United States. It shows that the use of terrorism as an instrument of
foreign policy is an integral part of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s revolutionary DNA and that it is unlikely to change
with Hassan Rouhani as president.¶ The document, based on years of painstaking investigations by Nisman, is a timely reminder of
the limits of what so-called “moderates” in Iran, like Rouhani, will accept. Nisman’s investigations show that Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, the
Iranian president in 1994 and now remembered as even more moderate than Rouhani, directly participated in planning the Argentine
bombing.¶ Rafsanjani is under indictment for his role in the attack. Rouhani, his close advisor, was the chair of the Islamic Republic’s powerful
Supreme National Security Council and, in that position, would have been intimately familiar with its planning.¶ The election of Rouhani is a gift
to the Argentine government of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who was already moving in the opposite direction to her prosecutor — rapidly
forgetting her nation’s history by normalizing relations with the Islamic Republic’s soon-to-be former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and
pushing the bombing investigation into cold storage.¶ Tehran
is on a charm offensive in the region and maintains
strong ties to Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua. Argentina’s status as a regional heavyweight would make it a
big prize for Tehran, which makes Fernández de Kirchner’s increasingly cozy relationship with the ayatollahs of considerable concern.¶ Nisman
draws on the oft-forgotten history of Iran in Latin America to flesh out his original, devastating 2006 indictment of senior Iranian leadership in
the worst case of Islamist terrorism in Latin America. Those indicted include current defense minister Ahmad Vahidi, former president
Rafsanjani, Ali Akbar Velayati, former foreign minister and a leading presidential candidate in Iran’s recent elections, Mohsen Rezai, the former
commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who also ran in Iran’s presidential campaign, and Moshen Rabbani, the chief
intelligence operative for Latin America. Based on the indictments Interpol has issued “red notices” for the arrest of five senior Iranian
officials.¶ Nisman shows that the 1994 bombing was not an isolated incident but rather a part of an ongoing strategy that embraced the use of
international terrorism adopted in an extraordinary meeting of the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary leaders and mullahs in Tehran in 1982.¶ As
Nisman noted in 2006, the decision to carry out the 1994 mass bombing was “adopted by a consensus of the highest representatives of the
Iranian government . . . within the context of a foreign policy that was quite willing to resort to violence” to achieve the goals of the 1979
revolution.¶ In
Latin America, Iran’s strategy ran on parallel tracks: Argentina in the south, Guyana in the
north and several countries in between. Perhaps most surprising to U.S. readers is that Iran’s Guyana cell planned and very
nearly executed the 2007 plot to blow up natural-gas lines under JFK Airport in New York City, bragging it would surpass 9/11 in devastation.
While Iran’s involvement in the funding and planning of the attack are documented in court filings in the case, in which two people were
convicted and sentenced to life in prison, it was barely mentioned either by U.S. prosecutors or the media covering the trial.¶ The activities of
Iran’s different government agencies, from the ministries of foreign affairs to its intelligence structure to its cultural centers and mosques all
play a role in exporting the Iranian revolution. Nisman
lays out the role of each part of the government, as well as
Hezbollah, acting as Iran’s proxy.¶
Iranian sponsored terrorism is extensive in Latin America – Iran’s 2011 plot to
assassinate a diplomat in DC proves – it even used Mexican drug cartel agents
Ahlert, former NY Post op-ed columnist, 6/4
(Arnold, 6/4/13, Frontpage Mag, “Iranian Terror Cells Infest South America,”
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/iranian-terror-cells-infest-southamerica/, accessed 6/30/13, IC)
Last Wednesday, Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman
accused Iran of “infiltrating” South America and
establishing intelligence networks aimed at carrying out more terrorist attacks in the region. Nisman said
the effort has been ongoing since the 1980s in Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Guyana,
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
62
Surinam and Trinidad and Tobago. “These are sleeper cells,” he explained. ”They have activities you wouldn’t imagine.
Sometimes they die having never received the order to attack.”¶ Nisman’s remarks were made as he presented a 500-page indictment detailing
the case against former Iranian officials accused of masterminding the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish center that killed 85 people.
The effort has resulted in Interpol arrest warrants for eight Iranians and one person believed to be
Lebanese. They include former Iranian cultural attaché in Argentina, Mohsen Rabbani; Iran’s current defense minister, Gen. Ahmad Vahidi;
former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani; former Intelligence Minister Ali Fallahian; former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, former
Revolutionary Guard chief Mohsen Rezaei; former ambassador to Argentina Hadi Soleimanpour; and the Iranian Embassy’s former third-ranking
diplomat, Ahmad Reza Asghari.¶ Velayati and Rezaei are candidates in Iran’s current presidential election, scheduled for June 14. Rabbani is the
alleged the architect of the bombing of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) in Buenos Aires, as well as ”coordinator of the Iranian
infiltration of South America, especially in Guyana,” according to Nisman.¶ With a population of 200,000, Argentina’s Jewish community is the
largest in South America, making it the most obvious target for terror in the region.¶ Nisman’s report contends that the
1994 bombing
“has to be investigated as a segment in a larger sequence.” This includes the case of Guyanese men
Russell M. Defreitas and Abdul Kadir, who were convicted in 2010 of conspiring to attack New York’s Kennedy
International Airport by blowing up fuel tanks and triggering a series of explosions along a pipeline that wends its way through the city.
During cross-examination by prosecutors in that case, Kadir, a former Guyanese government official, admitted he had drafted regular reports to
the Iranian ambassador in Venezuela, outlining plans to infiltrate the Guyanese military and police forces.¶ According to Nisman, Kadir was
Rabbani’s “disciple.” Kadir “received instructions” from Rabbani “and carried out the Iranian infiltration in Guyana, whose structure was nearly
identical … to that established by Rabbani in Argentina,” the prosecutor wrote. He further insisted that Interpol should step up its efforts to
execute arrest warrants for the bombers.¶ The indictment has been sent to Rodolfo Canicoba Corral, the judge in charge of the case, as well as
the countries targeted for infiltration. Iran has sought “to infiltrate the countries of Latin America and install secret intelligence stations with
the goal of committing, fomenting and fostering acts of international terrorism in concert with its goals of exporting the revolution,” Nisman
wrote.¶ Unsurprisingly, Iran has denied any involvement in the 1994 attack. Furthermore, the regime refuses to allow Rabbani or any of the
other suspects to be extradited to Argentina. The Iranians insist a viable compromise is a newly agreed upon “truth commission” that will
purportedly allow Nisman to obtain testimony from the accused — in Tehran — following years of legal deadlock.¶ The establishment of the
truth commission was announced in January, following a concession made by Iran last July to cooperate with Argentina on the investigation,
which the Iranians contended ”was going down the wrong way.” It will be comprised of five judges, none of whom come from Argentina or
Iran.¶ AMIA officials, as well as other Jewish groups in Argentina, are vehemently opposed to the move. ”To ignore everything that Argentine
justice has done and to replace it with a commission that, in the best of cases, will issue, without any defined deadline, a ‘recommendation’ to
the parties constitutes, without doubt, a reversal in the common objective of obtaining justice,” said a joint statement released by AMIA and
the Delegation of Israelite Argentine Associations, which also contended the move would ”imply a decline in our sovereignty.”¶ Israeli Foreign
Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor was equally furious, saying that that Buenos Aires had committed a “breach of trust towards Israel.” The
Israeli embassy in Argentina was bombed in 1992, killing 29 and injuring more than 200 others. The pro-Iranian
group Islamic Jihad claimed it did it to avenge Israel’s assassination of a Hezbollah leader . Yet like the AMIA
case, no one has ever been brought to justice for that attack.¶ Countering Jewish opposition, Argentine president Cristina Fernandez, who
maintains ties with other Latin American nations on good terms with Iran, called the agreement “historic.” ”It guarantees the right to due
process of law, a fundamental principle of international criminal law,” she contended. On her Twitter account, Fernandez further insisted the
commission would ”analyze all the documentation presented to date by the judicial authorities of Argentina and Iran.”¶ Parliaments in both
countries have yet to approve the deal, the status of which remains a ”memorandum of understanding” signed by Argentine Foreign Minister
Hector Timerman and his Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi Salehi, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.¶ The Simon Wiesenthal Center
in Los Angeles was delighted with Nisman’s massive compilation of evidence, contending it should be the impetus for abandoning the truth
commission. ”There is
no question that the AMIA bombing was an action planned and carried out by
Iranians and their agents. Prosecutor Nisman’s expose of the Tehran regime’s continent-wide tentacles must render the IranArgentine cooperation agreement on investigating the AMIA bombing null and void,” said a statement issued by Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Dr.
Shimon Samuels and Sergio Widder, senior officials at the center.¶ Iran has no embassy in Argentina at the present time, but has added six in
the region since 2005, bringing the total there to 11. Iran has also established 17 cultural centers in the Western Hemisphere. Following
Nisman’s statements, no one answered the phone at the Iranian embassy in Brasilia, Brazil.¶ Nisman’s efforts might bolster the
“Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act,” signed into law on Dec. 28. The act gives Secretary of State John
Kerry 180 days to provide Congress with a report assessing Tehran’s activities in the hemisphere , in
order to deter threats posed by “the Government of Iran the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the IRGC’s Qods Force, and
Hezbollah.Ӧ The
law was undoubtedly prompted by Iran’s 2011 plot to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in
Washington, D.C., using members of a Mexican drug cartel to carry out the killing. “Reports of Iranian
intelligence agents being implicated in Hezbollah-linked activities since the early 1990s suggest direct
Iranian government support of Hezbollah activities in the Tri-Border Area of Argentina, Brazil, and
Paraguay, and in the past decade, Iran has dramatically increased its diplomatic missions to Venezuela,
Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Argentina, and Brazil,” the law states.¶ Unfortunately, the administration remains behind the
curve, either by accident or design. In December 2012, YNet News published a report noting that U.S. officials have been aware of
an “extensive web of contacts” linking drug cartels in Mexico and other South American countries
63
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
with Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda since at least 2010. That’s when a report commissioned by the House
Committee on Intelligence revealed that ties between Hezbollah, the Mexican drug cartels and Iran
“were getting stronger.” Illegal aliens associated with those groups have been smuggled into Mexico by those cartels, “placing them a
virtual stone’s-throw away from the United States,” the magazine reported.¶ One suspects that report, as well as the one by Alberto Nisman,
will be downplayed at least for the next two months, while those dedicated to “comprehensive immigration reform” attempt to get their
handiwork approved in both houses of Congress. Nisman’s establishment of Iranian terror cells in South America, as well as the establishment
of their involvement with drug cartels a “stone’s throw” from the U.S. border would undoubtedly complicate a bill in which border control
“metrics” would be assessed by the same administration determined to convince Americans that terror
is “on the run.” Running loose
in South and Central America is more like it.
Argentina will allow for these terrorists – Kirchner wants to increase relations with
Iran and strengthen the Anti-US coalition created by Chávez – there are even three
Iranian-sponsored terrorist groups that infiltrated the US
Collins, Paulding County Republican Examiner, 6/24
(Christopher, 6/24/13, The Examiner, “Argentina forges ties with Iran, terrorist
networks in South America and U.S.” http://www.examiner.com/article/argentinaforges-ties-with-iran-terrorist-networks-south-america-and-u-s, accessed 6/30/13, IC)
The Center for Security Policy on Monday reported that Argentine President Cristina Kirchner has been
building closer ties with the Iranian regime and that a 500-page report was compiled and released on the
infiltration of Iranian terrorist groups in South America, Argentina, and the U.S. The report on the Iranian
terrorist network as compiled and released by the Argentinean federal prosecutor, Alberto Nisman, who is the lead investigator of the 1994
terrorist attack against the Jewish headquarters, the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) in Buenos Aires.¶ The bombing was
Argentina's deadliest bombing ever that killed 85 people and injuring hundreds more. Argentina was also the home to a Jewish community of
200,000, the largest in the region.¶ The Center for Security Policy Editor-in-Chief of The Americas Report, Nancy Menges and Editor Luis
Fleischman stated that the alleged report detailed that Iran’s terrorist networks have a presence in several countries in South America and that
Iran
plans to establish intelligence bases in every country in order to carry out, promote, and sponsor
terrorists.¶ The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a non-profit, non-partisan policy institute working to defend free nations
against their enemies obtained the report and released a condensed 31 page summary that outlines the evidence.¶ In that report, it states in
part:¶ “For the first time in the Argentine and world judicial history, it has been gathered and substantiated in a judicial file, evidence that
proved the steps taken by a terrorist regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, to infiltrate, for decades, large regions of Latin
America, through the establishment of clandestine intelligence stations and operative agents which are
used to execute terrorist attacks when the Iranian regime decides so, both directly or through its proxy,
the terrorist organization Hezbollah.”¶ “This intelligence and terrorist network had already caused devastating consequences in Argentina
in 1994 and almost strike again in the United States in 2007, when the blowing of fuel pipes and tanks of “John F. Kennedy” New York´s
International Airport was dodged by the timely intervention of US law enforcements agencies, which –in this case- led to the arrest of the
plotters and their conviction to life imprisonment. Several of those terrorists were veteran Iranian intelligence agents that were active in the
region. Among them was Guyanese citizen Abdul Kadir, whose importance lies in his close relationship and hierarchical subordination to
Mohsen Rabbani.”¶ “These actions have been taking place within the so-called “export of the revolution”, which was never masked by Tehran
and is, in fact, written in their own constitution.”¶ “It was demonstrated that in 1982 an important seminar was held in the Islamic Republic of
Iran, attended by approximately 380 religious men from 70 different countries. This meeting was a turning point on the regime’s method to
export the revolution, understood as the cultural, political and religious infiltration promoted to expand a radical and violent vision of Islam. In
the seminar, it was concluded that the regime would use violence and terrorism to reach its expansionist objectives. And that is why Javad
Mansouri called to turn each Iranian embassy into an intelligence center and a base to export the revolution.Ӧ Menges and Fleischman said,
“These
allegations are based on a number of reports including factual and legal documentation
coming from Europe, Latin America and the United States. Prosecutor Nisman provided details of how the Iranian
terrorist machine operates and also pointed out that the Iranians have a presence in countries such as Brazil, the United States,
Guyana, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Trinidad & Tobago and Surinam.Ӧ Menges and Fleischman stated
that Argentine President Cristina Kirchner is more interested in forging closer ties with Iran that dealing with the justice in prosecuting the guilty
in the AMIA terrorism case.¶ “Argentina's President, Cristina Kirchner
is moving to ignore Nisman’s report and
completely let Iranian perpetrators of terror off the hook in order to strengthen relations with Iran
and reinforce the anti-American coalition created by Hugo Chavez, who was and continues to be a role model for her,”
64
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Menges and Fleischman said.¶ “The victims of the terrorist attacks served the Kirchners’ desire to accumulate political capital. As such, Nestor
Kirchner embraced the AMIA tragedy and the demands of justice in 2003. Now the families of the victims, the Jewish community, and justice
itself are all expendable as President Cristina moves to ignore Nisman’s report; patch up the entire affair; and completely let the Iranian
perpetrators off the hook,” said Menges and Fleischman.¶ “But what is worse is Kirchner’s benevolent policies towards
Iran that
sets a dangerous precedent.Ӧ Although the Obama administration denies any Iranian terrorist cells or threats exist in the United
States, Reza Kahlili, author of "A Time to Betray," served in the CIA Directorate of Operations, a spy in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and a
counter-terrorism expert reported last month that Iran gave the go-ahead to operatives of three terrorist
groups that have infiltrated the United States to carry out missions.
Iranian bases in Latin America are to execute the Islamic Revolution, and they are
ready to directly respond to US threats – the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador
proves
Levitt, director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 6/14
(Matthew, 6/14/13, Tico Times, “Iran agents in Latin America,”
http://www.ticotimes.net/More-news/News-Briefs/Iran-agents-in-LatinAmerica_Friday-June-14-2013, accessed 6/30/13, IC)
But that's not all. Closer to the United States, Iran
not only continues to expand its presence and bilateral
relationships with countries like Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela, but it also maintains a
network of intelligence agents specifically tasked with sponsoring and executing terrorist attacks in
the Western Hemisphere.¶ The same day the State Department released its report, highly respected Argentine prosecutor Alberto
Nisman, who served as special prosecutor for the investigation into the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish
community center in Buenos Aires, released a 500-page document laying out how the Iranian regime has, since
the early 1980s, built and maintained "local clandestine intelligence stations designed to sponsor, foster and
execute terrorist attacks" in the Western Hemisphere.¶ Nisman found evidence that Iran is building
intelligence networks identical to the one responsible for the bombings in Argentina across the region
— from Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, and Colombia to Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago and
Suriname.¶ Nisman's 2006 report on the AMIA bombing already demonstrated how Iran established a robust intelligence network in South
America in the early 1980s. One document, seized during a court-ordered raid of the residence of an Iranian
diplomat north of Buenos Aires, included a map denoting areas populated by Muslim communities and
suggested an Iranian strategy to export Islam into South America — and from there to North America.
Highlighting areas densely populated by Muslims, the document informed that these "will be used from Argentina as
[the] center of penetration of Islam and its ideology towards the North American continent."¶ Nisman concluded
that the driving force behind Iran's intelligence efforts in Argentina was Mohsen Rabbani, an Iranian who
lived in Argentina for 11 years and played a key role in the Islamic Republic's intelligence operations in South America.
Rabbani, the primary architect of the AMIA plot, reportedly had come from Iran for the express purpose of heading the state-owned al-Tawhid
mosque in Buenos Aires, but he also served as a representative of the Iranian Ministry of Agriculture, which was tasked with ensuring the
quality of Argentine meat exported to Iran. The Argentine prosecutor reported that Rabbani began laying the groundwork for his spy network
after arriving in the country in 1983. Indeed, just prior to his departure for South America, Rabbani met Abolghasem Mesbahi, an Iranian
intelligence official who would later defect, and explained to Mesbahi that
he was being dispatched to Argentina "in
order to create support groups for exporting the Islamic revolution," according to Nisman's 2006 report.¶
Rabbani advanced his vision of the "Islamic revolution" through a variety of means — including the
execution of two large-scale attacks in Argentina. In 1992, Iran and Hezbollah bombed the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires,
killing 29 people. Two years later, they targeted the AMIA Jewish community center, killing 85 people. Based on Nisman's investigation, in 2007
Interpol issued six "red notices," which request international cooperation to arrest and extradite a suspect, for the key players behind the AMIA
bombing. Two of those red notices were for Mohsen Rezaei and Ali Akbar Velayati, both of whom are running for president in Iran's upcoming
election.¶ Rabbani's terrorist activities in South America, however, did not wane despite being indicted in Argentina. According to Nisman and
U.S. District Court documents from the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, Rabbani helped four men who were plotting to bomb New
York's John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2007 and who sought technical and financial assistance for the operation, codenamed "Chicken
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
65
Farm." All four men were ultimately convicted in federal court.¶ The four men first sought out Yasin Abu Bakr, leader of the Trinidadian militant
group Jamaat al-Muslimeen, and Adnan el-Shukrijumah, an al-Qaida operative who grew up in Brooklyn and South Florida and fled the United
States for the Caribbean in the days before the 9/11 attacks. Unable to find Shukrijumah, the plotters "sent [co-conspirator] Abdul Kadir to
meet with his contacts in the Iranian revolutionary leadership, including Mohsen Rabbani," according to a news release issued by the U.S.
attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York.¶ One co-conspirator was Kareem Ibrahim, an imam and leader of the Shiite Muslim
community in Trinidad and Tobago. During cross-examination at trial, Ibrahim admitted that he advised the plotters to approach Iranian leaders
with the plot and use operatives ready to engage in suicide attacks at the airport. In one of the recorded conversations entered into evidence,
Ibrahim told Russell Defreitas — a plotter who was a JFK baggage handler and a naturalized U.S. citizen — that the attackers must be ready to
"fight it out, kill who you could kill, and go back to Allah."¶ Documents seized from Kadir's house in Guyana demonstrated that he was a
Rabbani disciple who built a Guyanese intelligence base for Iran much like his mentor had built in Argentina. In a letter written to Rabbani in
2006, Kadir agreed to perform a "mission" for Rabbani to determine whether a group of individuals in Guyana and Trinidad were up to some
unidentified task.¶ In the 1990s and 2000s, Rabbani also oversaw the education and indoctrination of Guyanese and other South American
Muslim youth, including Kadir's children, in Iran. Kadir was ultimately arrested in Trinidad aboard a plane headed to Venezuela, en route to Iran.
He was carrying a computer drive with photographs featuring himself and his children posing with guns, which prosecutors suggested were
intended as proof for Iranian officials of his intent and capability to carry out an attack.¶ In 2011, not long before the last defendant in the JFK
airport bomb plot was convicted, evidence emerged suggesting Rabbani was still doing intelligence work in South America. An April 2011 article
in the Brazilian magazine Veja, citing documents from the FBI, CIA, and Interpol, reported that Rabbani "frequently slips in and out of Brazil on a
false passport and has recruited at least 24 youngsters in three Brazilian states to attend 'religious formation' classes in Tehran," according to
an article in the Telegraph.¶ In the word of one Brazilian official quoted by the magazine, "Without
anybody noticing, a
generation of Islamic extremists is appearing in Brazil."¶ The growth of this Iranian extremist network
in South America has immediate repercussions for the security of the United States. The same day that Nisman
and the State Department released their reports, an Iranian-American used-car salesman from Texas was sentenced to 25
years in prison for his role in an Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States at
a popular Washington restaurant. In the assessment by James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, this
plot "shows that some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed
their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or
perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime."¶ Strangely, one of the countries most vulnerable to this terrorist threat
appears more interested in placating, rather than opposing, the country responsible. In February, Argentina approved a deal with Iran for a
joint "truth commission" to investigate the 1994 AMIA bombing — a step that insults the Argentine victims of the attack and makes a mockery
of the rule of law. Of course, Nisman, Argentina's own special prosecutor, left no doubt in his 2006 report and his latest 500-page report about
the truth of who was behind the bombing — Iranian agents.¶ The State Department has it right: There has indeed been a "marked resurgence"
of Iranian state sponsorship of terrorism over the past 18 months. But as the new Nisman report drives home, here's an even more disturbing
fact — Iran
has run intelligence networks in the United States' backyard to "sponsor, foster and execute
terrorist attacks" for decades.
Cooperation with Latin America k2 Security in the U.S.
Mazetti, Columnist for the LA Times, ‘04
(Mark, 11/17/04, http://articles.latimes.com/2004/nov/17/world/fg-rumsfeld17,
accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
Although countries of the region are beginning to see the benefits of greater economic cooperation in
recent years, "we need to strengthen security cooperation, so we can see the benefits there,"
Rumsfeld said during a news conference with Ecuadorean Defense Minister Nelson Herrera. Failure to
deal directly with the issues of drugs and terrorism, U.S. officials argue, could lead to more countries
in Latin America experiencing internal conflicts like those Colombia faces. Colombia has been roiled for
years by violence among left-wing rebels, right-wing paramilitary groups and government forces, as the
lines between political agendas and drug trafficking have blurred. "Colombia learned this too late, that's
why they're in the situation they are in today," the senior U.S. defense official said. U.S. officials are
particularly worried that the region where Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay converge, with its large
Arab population, has become a fundraising hub for militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
American intelligence agencies believe that international terrorists may be operating in the region,
although they have no concrete evidence of cells plotting to attack the United States. The problem of
international terrorism in Latin America, officials say, could become more acute as terrorists seek to
exploit what Rumsfeld calls the "seams" that exist between the security infrastructures of various
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
66
nations. "They look for weaknesses, they look for seams, they look for vulnerabilities. They use
borders to their advantage," Rumsfeld said during the news conference.
Terrorism results in Extinction
Morgan, Hankuk University Professor of Foreign Studies, 9
(Dennis, Professor @ Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (South Korea, “World on fire: two scenarios of the
destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race,” Futures, November, Science Direct,
6-31-13)
In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question ‘‘Is Nuclear War Inevitable??’’ [10].4 In
Section 1, Moore points out what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions
between powerful countries. No doubt, they’ve figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions
into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant terrorists
would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or
Israel. Because of the Russian ‘‘dead hand’’ system, ‘‘where regional nuclear commanders would
be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed,’’ it is likely that any attack would be blamed on
the United States’’ [10]. Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were
to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with the suicidal
‘‘Samson option’’ against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option
would also include attacks on Russia and even ‘‘anti-Semitic’’ European cities [10]. In that case, of course,
Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved
as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them much more
powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in
the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout
the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted
to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon
the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And what many people fail to realize is what a
precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Any accident, mistaken communication,
false signal or ‘‘lone wolf’ act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of a few minutes, unleash
the use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a rapid escalation of
nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited nuclear war is actually less probable since each
country would act under the ‘‘use them or lose them’’ strategy and psychology; restraint by one
power would be interpreted as a weakness by the other, which could be exploited as a window of opportunity
to ‘‘win’’ the war. In other words, once Pandora’s Box is opened, it will spread quickly, as it will be the
signal for permission for anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of
people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however, ‘‘everyone else feels free to do so. The bottom line is
that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate factions glued together
and to satisfy elites’ needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably
use nuclear weapons. And as long as large nations oppress groups who seek self determination, some of those
groups will look for any means to fight their oppressors’’ [10]. In other words, as long as war and aggression are
backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time before the escalation of violent
conflict leads to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and once even just one is used, it is very likely that
many, if not all, will be used, leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the destruction of
much of human civilization while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is such a
remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
67
Impact – Terrorism – Impact Booster
Latin America is the key infiltration point for terrorists- repurposed smuggling routes.
Fox News Latino, 2012
[4-30-2012, Fox News Latino, “U.S. Ties to Latin America Key to War on Terror- Top
General Says,” http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/03/30/us-ties-to-latinamerica-key-to-war-on-terror/print EJH]
In his first trip to Latin America, Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey said that the U.S. is working to
improve security ties in Latin America because they worry that smuggling networks used to move
illegal drugs into the U.S. could be tomorrow's path for a terrorist's bomb.¶ Dempsey said he is wary of
a dangerous network of drug traffickers, weapons smugglers and organized criminal elements in South
and Central America. They have developed transit avenues -- by land, sea and air -- that one day could
be used to move far more dangerous things, like weapons of mass destruction, across the southern
U.S. border, he said in an interview with reporters traveling with him.¶ "That network can move
anything," he said. "It'll go to the highest bidder. So looking to the future, it's certainly in our interest
to do what we can to help the nations in this region to break those networks" to prevent it being used
by terrorists.¶ "It's both the narcoterrorism activities that we see destabilizing our southern border
(and) it's that network itself that can be used for other purposes -- and probably will be," he added.¶
Asked whether he sees this network as akin to the al-Qaida network of terrorist cells, money raisers and
facilitators, he said, "That is a fair analogy. We learned how to defeat al-Qaida by attacking the network
along its entire length. Now in that case we did most, if not all, of the heavy lifting. The question here (in
South America) would be, can we take the same paradigm in how to attack a network -- but not do it
ourselves?"¶ Best Pix of the Week¶ Dempsey is not advocating a surge of U.S. military activity in Latin
America, although the Obama administration has identified this region as increasingly important to
U.S. national security. To underscore that importance, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is due to visit
Colombia, Brazil and Chile next month, and President Barack Obama is due to attend a Summit of the
Americas in Colombia in mid-April.¶ Brazil was the final stop on a three-day tour of South America that
on Tuesday took Dempsey to a jungle outpost in northeastern Colombia a couple of miles from the
Venezuelan border, where the Colombian military -- with help from U.S. military advisers -- is stepping
up its decades-long fight against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the insurgent group
known by its Spanish initials, FARC.¶ Dempsey has used his visits to reaffirm a U.S. commitment to
working with the region's militaries. The visit also served to highlight a key tenet of the Obama
administration's new defense strategy: partnering with other militaries in regions where the U.S. does
not have a substantial military footprint and helping countries like Colombia fight their insurgents
rather than intervening with U.S. troops.¶ Dempsey said arrangements are being made to send Army
and perhaps Marine Corps colonels who have commanded combat brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan to
Colombia to share what they learned about countering an insurgency. The plan is to have one such
colonel spend two weeks with each of the seven specially tailored task forces that the Colombian
military is establishing in various parts of the country to counter the FARC. The Colombians see this as a
way to help them accelerate their campaign to further degrade the FARC.¶ Colombia also would like the
Pentagon to provide additional aircraft for moving cargo and troops, as well as more surveillance aircraft
for tracking the rebels, Dempsey said, adding that he is not yet ready to recommend to Panetta when or
whether the U.S. should make those additional contributions.¶ On Wednesday, Dempsey visited the
Brazilian city of Manaus, near the confluence of the Amazon river and the Rio Negro. He toured a
steamy outpost where Brazilian troops train in jungle warfare, a skill that U.S. soldiers have lost during a
decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
68
We need bilateral and multilateral channels of diplomacy to stop major Latin America
terrorism threats- Iranian terrorism groups taking root in multiple Latin American
countries.
Vann, Director of the Latino and Latin American Institute, 2008
[Dina Siegel, 2008, ajc.org, “Iran’s Prescence in Latin America: Trade, Energy and
Terror” http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395D25925B85EAF%7D/IranPresenceLatinAmerica_032007.pdf EJH]
The main players in the international arena have insistently identified Iran’s undeterred ¶ development
of nuclear capability as a clear threat to world peace. Its hostile relationship ¶ with the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as well as its frequent belligerent ¶ statements regarding the U.S. and
Israel are in the news almost every day. In addition, ¶ Iran’s financial, logistical and political support of
terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and ¶ Hamas operating in the Middle East and as far away as
Argentina is well documented. ¶ The prevailing question seems to be how can the world community,
through the use of ¶ bilateral or multilateral channels and pressure points, leverage its relations with
Iran to ¶ deter it from becoming a nuclear power. ¶ There is one aspect of this thorny issue, however,
that has remained relatively unknown. ¶ For several decades, Iran has made strategic attempts to
increase its presence and activity ¶ in Latin America. With fully-operational embassies in Cuba,
Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil ¶ and Argentina, plans to reopen embassies or strengthen its diplomatic
presence in Chile, ¶ Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Uruguay, and the founding of a new embassy in ¶
Bolivia, Iran is expanding its stronghold on the continent. Times could not be more ¶ auspicious, with
emerging populist leaders in the region viewing this relationship as part ¶ of a political realignment
that excludes the United States, and with American attention ¶ focused primarily on other areas of
the world. ¶ Relations between Iran and Latin America have existed for decades, but since taking ¶ office
in August 2005, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has pursued an aggressive ¶ foreign policy aimed at
building alliances with Latin American nations. Iran’s Foreign ¶ Ministry hosted “The First International
Seminar on Latin America: Its Role and Status in ¶ the Future International System” in late February
2007.1¶ The encounter brought together ¶ representatives from many of these nations to discuss ways in
which the relationship ¶ could be brought to a new level. Stronger alliances with countries that allegedly
are ¶ antagonistic to the U.S. seem to be facilitated by a populist trend sweeping the region, led ¶ by
President Chávez of Venezuela.
Anti-American ideologies are being fostered by Iran in Latin America while garnering
support for their nuclear program- trade and political agendas.
Vann, Director of the Latino and Latin American Institute, 2008
[Dina Siegel, 2008, ajc.org, “Iran’s Prescence in Latin America: Trade, Energy and
Terror” http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395D25925B85EAF%7D/IranPresenceLatinAmerica_032007.pdf EJH]
¶ There is no doubt that the recent impetus in Iranian-Latin American relations has as much ¶ to do
with regional as with geopolitical factors. Take the case of Bolivia and Venezuela, ¶ who are among the
world’s richest sources of gas and oil, respectively. President Chávez ¶ sees his country’s oil supplies as
a means to pursue an independent diplomatic course ¶ from “U.S. imperialism” and supported
Morales’ May 2006 nationalization of Bolivia’s ¶ oil and natural gas industry. Ahmadinejad welcomed
Chávez’s proposal for tripartite ¶ cooperation among Iran, Venezuela, and Bolivia on energy production.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
69
Cuba’s proximity ¶ to the U.S. has also served Ahmadinejad’s goal of unnerving Washington and
fostering ¶ an anti-U.S. axis in the Western Hemisphere.¶ Whether through trade promotion, the
joint development of nuclear capabilities, or the ¶ advancement of shared ideological and political
agendas, Iran is taking advantage of ¶ whatever front- or back-door options are available to win allies
in the Western ¶ Hemisphere. Most of the nations in the Americas are addressing the Iranian
overtures ¶ either as committed ideological or business partners or as bystanders. Regardless, they ¶
are helping Iran persevere in pursuing a nuclear program with clear aggressive ¶ undertones, despite
the threat that it represents to world peace.
Iran is creating ties in the Western Hemisphere to undermine the U.S. and make us
vulnerable- joint ventures and political and economic agreements.
Vann, Director of the Latino and Latin American Institute, 2008
[Dina Siegel, 2008, ajc.org, “Iran’s Prescence in Latin America: Trade, Energy and
Terror” http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395D25925B85EAF%7D/IranPresenceLatinAmerica_032007.pdf EJH]
Iran’s endeavors in Latin America are not to be taken lightly. Joint ventures, political and ¶ economic
agreements, and the increased exchange of ideas on the future of the Western ¶ Hemisphere are
coalescing to help make Ahmadinejad’s dream of an anti-U.S. axis a ¶ reality. This growing alliance
seeks to counterbalance the international community’s ¶ front against Iran’s development of nuclear
capabilities that are rightly perceived as a ¶ threat to world peace. In Iran’s view, times are auspicious
given the election of leaders in ¶ the region who, due to their political bent, can allegedly prove to be
sympathetic to its ¶ goals. In addition, growing anti-American sentiment and the apparent search for
political ¶ realignment can also prove to be helpful in fostering the right climate to oppose what is ¶
generally perceived as an interventionist attitude on the part of the U.S. and Europe. If ¶ Iran feels that
there is a serious threat of an attack against its nuclear sites, it has already ¶ announced that it will
rely on suicide bombers to defend its interests. This ominous ¶ scenario is compounded by Cuba and
Venezuela’s firm commitment to standing beside ¶ Iran. Unfortunately, Latin America has twice in the
past experienced Tehran’s support for ¶ terror operations. Clarity of thought and purpose are required
to thwart Iran’s goals in the ¶ Western Hemisphere.
Latin American terrorism is a serious threat- ties to Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaeda in
the tri-border area.
Abbot, Lieutenant in the U.S. Army, 2004
Philip K, September 2004, Military Review, “Terrorist Threat in The Tri-Border Area:
Myth or Reality” http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/abbott.pdf EJH]
Ambassador Philip Wilcox, former Department of¶ State (DOS) Coordinator for Counterterrorism,
testified before the International Relations Committee¶ of the U.S. House of Representatives that
Hezbollah¶ activities in the TBA have involved narcotics, smuggling, and terrorism. Many believe the
TBS’s Arab¶ and Muslim community contains hardcore terrorist¶ sympathizers with direct ties to
Hezbollah, the proIranian, Lebanese Shiite terrorist group; Hamas, the¶ Palestinian fundamentalist
group; the Egyptian group¶ Islamic Jihad; and even al-Qaeda.3 However, Arab¶ and Muslim TBA leaders
claim their community¶ members are moderates who have lived in harmony¶ with the rest of the
population for many years and¶ have rejected extremist views and terrorism. Most¶ of the TBA’s 20,000
Arabs and Muslims say it¶ would be impossible for terrorists to hide in their¶ midst and deny remittances
¶
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
sent abroad go to¶ Hezbollah. A minority of Arabs and Muslims, however, make no secret about their
sympathy and financial support for Hezbollah, which they say is a¶ legitimate Lebanese political party
70
71
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Impact – Prolif
The TIME IS NOW – LA is susceptible to leftist governments that could result in nuclear
proliferation.
Ferkaluk, Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base Wing
Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force, 10
(Brian, Fall 2010, Global Security Studies, “Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage,” pg 12,
ACCESSED June 29, 2013, RJ)
The close relationship the US must maintain with Latin America is not only vital in the fight against
domestic and international terrorism, but also in the fight to curtail nuclear proliferation in the region.
Although there is no immediate risk of Latin America in becoming a haven for a nuclear arms race, it
could pose a serious threat of pursuing nuclear weapons in the coming years if the civilian-run
governments of these states fall victim to leftist revolutionaries. Another factor to consider is the fact
that Latin America has historically been active in both nuclear weapons development and nuclear
power development. And given Latin America’s tendency toward military junta regimes (stratocracy),
the US cannot turn a blind eye to the possibility of nuclear activity in Latin America. All Latin American
countries are party to the NPT. Not all are members of international conventions such as the Vienna
Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage and not all adopt an Additional Protocol (AP) to their
safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The region itself has been
declared a nuclear-free zone according to the Treaty of Tlatelolco. It entered into force in 1969 and did
not have all 33 Latin American states sign onto it until Cuba added its name in 2002. However, the
treaty itself has not served as an absolute ban of nuclear weapons in the region. Brazil, for instance,
has not let the Treaty of Tlatelolco stand in the way of its own weapons development program in the
late 1970s. And Venezuela today is not letting it stand in its way either. The most significant weakness
of the treaty is the fact that it permits parties of the treaty to develop nuclear explosives for peaceful
purposes. Therefore, Latin America has served as battlefield in the fight for non-proliferation.
Proliferation makes extinction inevitable—terrorism, miscalculation, and retaliation
Utgoff, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for
Defense Analysis, 2
(Victor A., “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions,” Survival, Summer, p. 87-90, 6-31-13)
Further, the large number of states that became capable of building nuclear weapons over the years,
but chose not to, can be reasonably well explained by the fact that most were formally allied with
either the United States or the Soviet Union. Both these superpowers had strong nuclear forces and
put great pressure on their allies not to build nuclear weapons. Since the Cold War, the US has
retained all its allies. In addition, NATO has extended its protection to some of the previous allies of
the Soviet Union and plans on taking in more. Nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan, and
proliferation programmes by North Korea, Iran and Iraq, all involve states in the opposite situation:
all judged that they faced serious military opposition and had little prospect of establishing a reliable
supporting alliance with a suitably strong, nucleararmed state. What would await the world if strong
protectors, especially the United States, were [was] no longer seen as willing to protect states from
nuclear-backed aggression? At least a few additional states would begin to build their own nuclear
weapons and the means to deliver them to distant targets, and these initiatives would spur
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
increasing numbers of the world’s capable states to follow suit. Restraint would seem ever less
necessary and ever more dangerous. Meanwhile, more states are becoming capable of building
nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Many, perhaps most, of the world’s states are becoming
sufficiently wealthy, and the technology for building nuclear forces continues to improve and spread.
Finally, it seems highly likely that at some point, halting proliferation will come to be seen as a lost
cause and the restraints on it will disappear. Once that happens, the transition to a highly
proliferated world would probably be very rapid. While some regions might be able to hold the line
for a time, the threats posed by wildfire proliferation in most other areas could create pressures
that would finally overcome all restraint. Many readers are probably willing to accept that nuclear
proliferation is such a grave threat to world peace that every effort should be made to avoid it.
However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talking about much more
substantial efforts now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow or
stop nuclear proliferation, it needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that
would sooner or later evolve without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And, for many
reasons, it is not. First, the dynamics of getting to a highly proliferated world could be very
dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery
systems before any potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent may
consider preemptive nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation.
Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponent’s nuclear programme or defeat the
opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building
nuclear weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of
mass destruction, such as biological weapons. Second, as the world approaches complete
proliferation, the hazards posed by nuclear weapons today will be magnified many times over. Fifty
or more nations capable of launching nuclear weapons means that the risk of nuclear accidents that
could cause serious damage not only to their own populations and environments, but those of
others, is hugely increased. The chances of such weapons failing into the hands of renegade military
units or terrorists is far greater, as is the number of nations carrying out hazardous manufacturing
and storage activities. Worse still, in a highly proliferated world there would be more frequent
opportunities for the use of nuclear weapons. And more frequent opportunities means shorter
expected times between conflicts in which nuclear weapons get used, unless the probability of use at
any opportunity is actually zero. To be sure, some theorists on nuclear deterrence appear to think
that in any confrontation between two states known to have reliable nuclear capabilities, the
probability of nuclear weapons being used is zero.’ These theorists think that such states will be so
fearful of escalation to nuclear war that they would always avoid or terminate confrontations
between them, short of even conventional war. They believe this to be true even if the two states
have different cultures or leaders with very eccentric personalities. History and human nature,
however, suggest that they are almost surely wrong. History includes instances in which states
‘known to possess nuclear weapons did engage in direct conventional conflict. China and Russia
fought battles along their common border even after both had nuclear weapons. Moreover, logic
suggests that if states with nuclear weapons always avoided conflict with one another, surely states
without nuclear weapons would avoid conflict with states that had them. Again, history provides
counter-examples Egypt attacked Israel in 1973 even though it saw Israel as a nuclear power at the
time. Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and fought Britain’s efforts to take them back, even
though Britain had nuclear weapons. Those who claim that two states with reliable nuclear
capabilities to devastate each other will not engage in conventional conflict risking nuclear war also
assume that any leader from any culture would not choose suicide for his nation. But history
provides unhappy examples of states whose leaders were ready to choose suicide for themselves and
their fellow citizens. Hitler tried to impose a ‘victory or destruction’’ policy on his people as Nazi
72
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Germany was going down to defeat. And Japan’s war minister, during debates on how to respond to
the American atomic bombing, suggested ‘Would it not be wondrous for the whole nation to be
destroyed like a beautiful flower?” If leaders are willing to engage in conflict with nuclear-armed
nations, use of nuclear weapons in any particular instance may not be likely, but its probability would
still be dangerously significant. In particular, human nature suggests that the threat of retaliation
with nuclear weapons is not a reliable guarantee against a disastrous first use of these weapons.
While national leaders and their advisors everywhere are usually talented and experienced people,
even their most important decisions cannot be counted on to be the product of well-informed and
thorough assessments of all options from all relevant points of view. This is especially so when the
stakes are so large as to defy assessment and there are substantial pressures to act quickly, as could
be expected in intense and fast-moving crises between nuclear-armed states. Instead, like other
human beings, national leaders can be seduced by wishful thinking. They can misinterpret the words
or actions of opposing leaders. Their advisors may produce answers that they think the leader wants
to hear, or coalesce around what they know is an inferior decision because the group urgently needs
the confidence or the sharing of responsibility that results from settling on something. Moreover,
leaders may not recognize clearly where their personal or party interests diverge from those of their
citizens. Under great stress, human beings can lose their ability to think carefully. They can refuse to
believe that the worst could really happen, oversimplify the problem at hand, think in terms of
simplistic analogies and play hunches. The intuitive rules for how individuals should respond to
insults or signs of weakness in an opponent may too readily suggest a rash course of action. Anger,
fear, greed, ambition and pride can all lead to bad decisions. The desire for a decisive solution to the
problem at hand may lead to an unnecessarily extreme course of action. We can almost hear the
kinds of words that could flow from discussions in nuclear crises or war. ‘These people are not willing
to die for this interest’. ‘No sane person would actually use such weapons’. ‘Perhaps the opponent
will back down if we show him we mean business by demonstrating a willingness to use nuclear
weapons’. ‘If I don’t hit them back really hard, I am going to be driven from office, if not killed’.
Whether right or wrong, in the stressful atmosphere of a nuclear crisis or war, such words from
others, or silently from within, might resonate too readily with a harried leader. Thus, both history
and human nature suggest that nuclear deterrence can be expected to fail from time to time, and we
are fortunate it has not happened yet. But the threat of nuclear war is not just a matter of a few
weapons being used. It could get much worse. Once a conflict reaches the point where nuclear
weapons are employed, the stresses felt by the leaderships would rise enormously. These stresses
can be expected to further degrade their decision-making. The pressures to force the enemy to stop
fighting or to surrender could argue for more forceful and decisive military action, which might be
the right thing to do in the circumstances, but maybe not. And the horrors of the carnage already
suffered may be seen as justification for visiting the most devastating punishment possible on the
enemy.’ Again, history demonstrates how intense conflict can lead the combatants to escalate
violence to the maximum possible levels. In the Second World War, early promises not to bomb cities
soon gave way to essentially indiscriminate bombing of civilians. The war between Iran and Iraq
during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against
each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from
rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and
armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence
starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants
before hand. Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And
such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily
accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear
weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the
73
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped,
we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With
most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more
polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies
of dead cities or even whole nations. This kind of world is in no nation’s interest. The means for
preventing it must be pursued vigorously. And, as argued above, a most powerful way to prevent it
or slow its emergence is to encourage the more capable states to provide reliable protection to
others against aggression, even when that aggression could be backed with nuclear weapons. In
other words, the world needs at least one state, preferably several, willing and able to play the role
of sheriff, or to be members of a sheriff’s posse, even in the face of nuclear threats.
74
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
75
Impact Booster—Prolif
Prolif causes extinction
Toon, Department of Atomspheric and Oceanic Science at CU, 7
(Owen B, chair – Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences – Colorado University,
climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acp-7-1973-2007.pdf, 6-31-13)
To an increasing extent, people are congregating in the world’s great urban centers, creating megacities
with populations exceeding 10 million individuals. At the same time, advanced technology has designed
nuclear explosives of such small size they can be easily transported in a car, small plane or boat to the
heart of a city. We demonstrate here that a single detonation in the 15 kiloton range can produce
urban fatalities approaching one million in some cases, and casualties exceeding one million.
Thousands of small weapons still exist in the arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, and there are at least six
other countries with substantial nuclear weapons inventories. In all, thirty-three countries control
sufficient amounts of highly enriched uranium or plutonium to assemble nuclear explosives. A conflict
between any of these countries involving 50-100 weapons with yields of 15 kt has the potential to
create fatalities rivaling those of the Second World War. Moreover, even a single surface nuclear
explosion, or an air burst in rainy conditions, in a city center is likely to cause the entire metropolitan
area to be abandoned at least for decades owing to infrastructure damage and radioactive
contamination. As the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in Louisiana suggests, the economic consequences
of even a localized nuclear catastrophe would most likely have severe national and international
economic consequences. Striking effects result even from relatively small nuclear attacks because low
yield detonations are most effective against city centers where business and social activity as well as
population are concentrated. Rogue nations and terrorists would be most likely to strike there.
Accordingly, an organized attack on the U.S. by a small nuclear state, or terrorists supported by such a
state, could generate casualties comparable to those once predicted for a full-scale nuclear
“counterforce” exchange in a superpower conflict. Remarkably, the estimated quantities of smoke
generated by attacks totaling about one megaton of nuclear explosives could lead to significant global
climate perturbations (Robock et al., 2007). While we did not extend our casualty and damage predictions
to include potential medical, social or economic impacts following the initial explosions, such analyses
have been performed in the past for large-scale nuclear war scenarios (Harwell and Hutchinson, 1985).
Such a study should be carried out as well for the present scenarios and physical outcomes.
Most probable scenario
Russell, Senior Lecturer, National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School, ‘9
(Spring) “Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East”
IFRI, Proliferation Papers, #26, http://www.ifri.org/downloads/PP26_Russell_2009.pdf, 6-31-13)
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the
bargaining framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of nonstate actors that introduce unpredictability into relationships between the antagonists ; (3) incompatible
assumptions about the structure of the deterrent relationship that makes the bargaining framework
strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for
military action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack ; (5) the prospect that Iran’s response to
pre-emptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
76
and/or the United States; (6) the lack of a communications framework to build trust and cooperation among
framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that
escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the
pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine scenarios under
which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional antagonists would consider the use of chemical,
biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep
nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an unstable strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries
between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the probability of war – a war in which escalation
could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely develop
a momentum all their own and decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways.
The international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to
prevent such an outcome, which would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with
substantial risk for the entire world.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
77
Impact – Competitiveness
Cooperation k2 Growth of Latin America in EVERY FIELD
Goodman, Guest Contributor to the Diplomatic Courier, 5/24/13
(Allen, 5/24/13, http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/opinion/1464-cooperationis-key-to-growth-for-latin-america, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
On a recent visit to Latin America, it was increasingly clear to me that policymakers in both the public
and private sector are committed to investing in higher education to develop their workforce and
future leaders. Learning, research, institution-building, and community engagement have become top
priorities for many governments across Latin America in the past ten years, and an emphasis on
international study as a means to advance national economic growth has been one of the keys to
achieving these priorities. The Institute of International Education has been involved in many of these developments over the years,
beginning with establishing a Latin America Division at our New York headquarters in the 1930, and then through our Latin America regional
office in Mexico City since 1974. Chief among the programs managed by IIE beginning in the 1970s was the ITT International Fellowship
Program, which served as an exemplary model of corporate involvement in international educational exchange for 17 years. Over the years, the
Institute’s work in the Western Hemisphere has grown to include a number of dynamic initiatives related to higher education, scholarship, and
fellowship programs, promoting study abroad, workforce and professional development, institutional partnership building, educational
advising, and English language testing.
In the United States, the Obama administration has made it a priority to expand academic exchanges
between Latin America and the United States. The U. S. government is working with foreign
governments, universities and colleges, and the private sector to reach the goal of “100,000 Strong in
the Americas” to increase the flow of students between Latin American and the Caribbean and the
United States to 100,000 in each direction. The most recent data in Open Doors report, published by IIE
in partnership with the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, shows
that 64,021 students from the region studied in the United States and 39,871 students from the U.S.
studied abroad in Latin America and the Caribbean. As described in a chapter on Western Hemisphere
Academic Exchanges by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Meghann Curtis and Policy Adviser Lisa
Kraus at the U.S. Department of State, “Strong partnerships in the region are critical to both U.S.
domestic and global strategic interests.” The authors note that science and technology innovations
have accelerated through cooperative partnerships and are key to shared sustainable growth, and
that working collaboratively across borders in the region is necessary to attain energy security and to
combat transnational crime and narcotrafficking, as well as to support the global effort to promote
democracy, rule of law, social inclusion and human rights around the world. “At the center of these
partnerships—and U.S. strategy in the region—are educational exchanges, which help us establish a
strong foundation for empowering the best innovators, entrepreneurs, and leaders of today to meet
all these challenges.”
Protectionism unleashes multiple scenarios for global nuclear war
Panzner, Prof. at the New York Institute of Finance, 9
(Michael Panzner, Prof. at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets who has worked
in New York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and JPMorgan Chase, Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future
from Economic Collapse, 2009, p. 136-138, 6-31-13)
Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth protectionist legislation
the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat
economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn into a
prolonged and devastating global disaster, But if history is any guide, those lessons will have been
long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on
like
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
78
trade, finance, investment, and immigration will almost certainly intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the crossborder movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile,
many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from
decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange, foreign individuals and companies
seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the (heap thanks to a rapidly
depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and
markets, disrupting global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence
and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through
arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife,
The rise in
isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous
confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of production that
or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly.
must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic
necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand
Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment
and natural resources will become more commonplace. Around the world, such tensions will give rise
to full-scale military encounters, often with minimal provocation. In some instances, economic
conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious
differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by
channeling frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap
technology and the waning threat of American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the
frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent
conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will
also take on a new, more healed sense of urgency. China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture
toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part,
seems constantly out of kilter with supply.
may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a
political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an "intense confrontation" between the United States and China is
"inevitable" at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences
Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate
quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing
biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunkerbusting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up conflicts between
Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.
will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
79
Impact – Energy Cooperation
US- Latin American cooperation key to economy and energy cooperation
Arcos et al., Senior Advisor @ The National Defense University’s Center for
Hemispheric Defense Studies, ‘12
(Cresencio, The Inter-American Dialogue, April 2012, "Remaking the Relationship: The
United States and Latin America?”,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf,
6/30/2013, PD)
Expanded trade, investment, and energy cooperation offer the greatest promise for robust US-Latin
American relations. Independent of government policies, these areas have seen tremendous growth
and development, driven chiefly by the private sector. The US government needs to better appreciate
the rising importance of Latin America—with its expanding markets for US exports, burgeoning
opportunities for US investments, enormous reserves of energy and minerals, and continuing supply
of needed labor—for the longer term performance of the US economy . With Brazil and many other
Latin American economies thriving and showing promise for sustained rapid growth and rising
incomes, the search for economic opportunities has become the main force shaping relationships in
the hemisphere. Intensive economic engagement by the United States may be the best foundation for
wider partnerships across many issues as well as the best way to energize currently listless US
relations with the region. What Latin America’s largely middle and upper middle income countries—
and their increasingly middle class populations—most want and need from the United States is access to
its $16-trillion-a-year economy, which is more than three times the region’s economies combined . Most
Latin American nations experienced quicker recovery from the financial crisis than did the United
States, and they are growing at a faster pace Nonetheless, they depend on US capital for investment,
US markets for their exports, and US technology and managerial innovation to lift productivity. They also
rely on the steady remittances from their citizens in the United States . The United States currently buys
about 40 percent of Latin America’s exports and an even higher percentage of its manufactured
products. It remains the first or second commercial partner for nearly every country in the region. And it
provides nearly 40 percent of foreign investment and upwards of 90 percent of the $60 billion or so in
remittance income that goes to Latin America. US economic preeminence in Latin America has,
however, waned in recent years. Just a decade ago, 55 percent of the region’s imports originated in the
United States. Today, the United States supplies less than one-third of Latin America’s imports. China
and Europe have made huge inroads. China’s share of trade in Brazil, Chile, and Peru has surpassed that
of the United States; it is a close second in Argentina and Colombia. Furthermore, Latin American
nations now trade much more among themselves. Argentina, for example, may soon replace the United
States as Brazil’s second largest trading partner, just behind China. Still, these changes must be put in
perspective. Even as the US share of the Latin American market has diminished, its exports to the region
have been rising at an impressive pace. They have more than doubled since 2000, growing an average
of nearly 9 percent a year, 2 percent higher than US exports worldwide. US trade should expand even
faster in the coming period as Latin America’s growth continues to be strong. But the United States will
have to work harder and harder to compete for the region’s markets and resources. While Latin
America has been diversifying its international economic ties, the region’s expanding economies have
become more critical to US economic growth and stability. Today the United States exports more to
Latin America than it does to Europe; twice as much to Mexico than it does to China; and more to
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
80
Chile and Colombia than it does to Russia. Even a cursory examination of the numbers points to how
much the United States depends on the region for oil and minerals. Latin America accounts for a third
of US oil imports. Mexico is the second-biggest supplier after Canada. Venezuela, Brazil, and Colombia
sit among the top dozen, and imports from Brazil are poised to rise sharply with its recent offshore
discoveries. Within a decade, Brazil and Mexico may be two of the three largest suppliers of oil to the
United States. The potential for heightened energy cooperation in the Americas is huge, with wideranging ramifications for economic well-being and climate change. Latin America is an important
destination for US direct and portfolio investments, absorbing each year about eight percent of all US
overseas investment. At the same time, Latin American investment in the United States is growing fast.
And no economic calculus should omit the vital value to the US economy of immigrant workers; US
agriculture and construction industries are heavily dependent on them. These workers, mostly from
Latin America, will drive the bulk of US labor force growth in the next decade and are important
elements in keeping social security solvent over the longer term.
Resource conflict causes extinction
Heinberg, New College of California, 3
(Richard, New College of California, The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, p. 230, 6-30-13)
While the US has not declared war on any nation since 1945, it has nevertheless bombed or invaded a
total of 19 countries and stationed troops, or engaged in direct or indirect military action, in dozens of
others. During the Cold War, the US military apparatus grew exponentially, ostensibly in response to
the threat posed by an archrival: the Soviet Union. But after the end of the Cold War the American
military and intelligence establishments did not shrink in scale to any appreciable degree. Rather, their
implicit agenda — the protection of global resource interests emerged as the semi-explicit justification
for their continued existence. With resource hegemony came challenges from nations or sub-national
groups opposing that hegemony. But the immensity of US military might ensured that such challenges
would be overwhelmingly asymmetrical. US strategists labeled such challenges “terrorism” — a term
with a definition malleable enough to be applicable to any threat from any potential enemy, foreign
or domestic, while never referring to any violent action on the part of the US, its agents, or its allies .
This policy puts the US on a collision course with the rest of the world. If all-out competition is
pursued with the available weapons of awesome power, the result could be the destruction not just of
industrial civilization, but of humanity and most of the biosphere.
81
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Impact – Economy
Latin American Relations Key to U.S. Economy – It’s On the Rise Now
Inter-American Dialogue, Think Tank, 2012
(“Remaking the Relationship: the United States and Latin America”, pg. 18, MK)
Expanded trade, investment, and energy cooperation offer the greatest promise for robust US-Latin
American relations. Independent of ¶ government policies, these areas have seen tremendous growth
and development, driven chiefly by the private sector. The US government needs to ¶ better appreciate
the rising importance of Latin America—with its expanding markets for US exports, burgeoning
opportunities for US investments, ¶ enormous reserves of energy and minerals, and continuing supply
of ¶ needed labor—for the longer term performance of the US economy.¶ With Brazil and many other
Latin American economies thriving and showing promise for sustained rapid growth and rising
incomes, the search for ¶ economic opportunities has become the main force shaping relationships in
¶ the hemisphere . Intensive economic engagement by the United States may ¶ be the best
foundation for wider partnerships across many issues as well as ¶ the best way to energize currently
listless US relations with the region.¶ What Latin America’s largely middle and upper middle income
countries—¶ and their increasingly middle class populations—most want and need from ¶ the United
States is access to its $16-trillion-a-year economy, which is more ¶ than three times the region’s
economies combined. Most Latin American ¶ nations experienced quicker recovery from the financial
crisis than did ¶ the United States, and they are growing at a faster pace. Nonetheless, they ¶ depend on
US capital for investment, US markets for their exports, and US ¶ technology and managerial innovation
to lift productivity. They also rely on ¶ the steady remittances from their citizens in the United States. The
United States currently buys about 40 percent of Latin America’s ¶ exports and an even higher
percentage of its manufactured products. China’s share of trade ¶ in Brazil, Chile, and ¶ Peru has
surpassed ¶ that of the United ¶ States; it is a close ¶ second in Argentina ¶ and Colombia.¶ remains the first
or second commercial partner for nearly every country ¶ in the region . And it provides nearly 40 percent
of foreign investment and ¶ upwards of 90 percent of the $60 billion or so in remittance income that ¶
goes to Latin America.¶ US economic preeminence in Latin America has, however, waned in recent ¶
years. Just a decade ago, 55 percent of the region’s imports originated in the ¶ United States. Today, the
United States supplies less than one-third of Latin ¶ America’s imports. China and Europe have made
huge inroads. China’s ¶ share of trade in Brazil, Chile, and Peru has surpassed that of the United ¶ States;
it is a close second in Argentina and Colombia. Furthermore, Latin ¶ American nations now trade much
more among themselves. Argentina, for ¶ example, may soon replace the United States as Brazil’s second
largest trading partner, just behind China. Still, these changes must be put in perspective. Even as the
US share of the ¶ Latin American market has diminished, its exports to the region have been ¶ rising at an
impressive pace. They have more than doubled since 2000, growing an average of nearly 9 percent a
year, 2 percent higher than US exports ¶ worldwide. US trade should expand even faster in the coming
period as Latin ¶ America’s growth continues to be strong. But the United States will have to ¶ work
harder and harder to compete for the region’s markets and resources .¶ While Latin America has been
diversifying its international economic ties, ¶ the region’s expanding economies have become more
critical to US economic growth and stability. Today the United States exports more to Latin ¶ America
than it does to Europe; twice as much to Mexico than it does to ¶ China; and more to Chile and Colombia
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
82
than it does to Russia .¶ Even a cursory examination of the numbers points to how much the United ¶
States depends on the region for oil and minerals . Latin America accounts ¶ for a third of US oil imports.
Mexico is the second-biggest supplier after ¶ Canada. Venezuela, Brazil, and Colombia sit among the top
dozen, and ¶ imports from Brazil are poised to rise sharply with its recent offshore discoveries. Within a
decade, Brazil and Mexico may be two of the three largest suppliers of oil to the United States. The
potential for heightened energy ¶ cooperation in the Americas is huge, with wide-ranging ramifications
for ¶ economic well-being and climate change .¶ Latin America is an important destination for US direct
and portfolio investments, absorbing each year about eight percent of all US overseas investment .¶ At
the same time, Latin American investment in the United States is growing fast . And no economic
calculus should omit the vital value to the United States and Latin America 13¶ A critical step for ¶ the
United States ¶ would be to ease its ¶ long-standing protection ¶ of agriculture through ¶ tariffs, subsidies,
¶ and quotas.¶ economy of immigrant workers; US agriculture and construction industries ¶ are heavily
dependent on them . These workers, mostly from Latin America, ¶ will drive the bulk of US labor force
growth in the next decade and are ¶ important elements in keeping social security solvent over the
longer term.
Latin American Relations Key to Democracy – Encourages Problem Solving
Alvarado, Diplomat, 2013
(Liza, 5/31, ISN, “The U.S. Must Re-evaluate its Foreign Policy in Latin America”,
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=164370, 6/30/13,
MK)
Relations between the United States and Latin America have experienced cyclical ups and downs.
Geographically, the United States and Latin America are linked and have a natural shared market, so
there will always be a relationship of one sort or another. The United States will continue to seek to
exert its influence over the region, whether through future plans for the placement of military bases or
the promotion of bilateral trade agreements.¶ Leftist governments will have to address challenges such
as those caused by social divisions and economic inequality. They will likely continue to focus on
implementing their leftist discourse, particularly in the wake of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s
death. However, it is important to consider that neoliberal philosophies are also still pervasive in many
countries of Latin America. This is an advantage for the United States, giving it an opportunity to push
for further privatization, but Latin American leftist movements should evaluate themselves and take
actions to if they are to avoid a return of neoliberal policies of the 1990s.¶ All that said, how can the
United States improve its foreign policy towards Latin America? There are many problems in the region
that should be faced together. Accepting this reality is the beginning to improving relations.
Transnational organized crime, drug trafficking, and immigration problems are worth making joint
efforts to resolve. The U.S. should encourage the strengthening of political and economic ties in the
Americas as well as promoting compliance of international commitments as a sign of willingness to
improve relations. There are many hemispheric conventions that provide the legal framework to begin
to work together against negative outcomes. An example is the Declaration on Security in the Americas
signed by the countries of the hemisphere in 2003. This document describes the new concept of
multidimensional security, and incorporates as new threats issues such as terrorism, drug trafficking and
organized crime, environmental degradation, natural resource and food scarcity, and uncontrolled
population growth and migration.¶ The United States should take active part in establishing
institutional networks through which policies can be coordinated, and through these promote the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
83
expansion of employment opportunities for the population, stimulate fair trade agreements, and
encourage the protection of the hemisphere against drug trafficking and organized crime. These are all
proposals that would certainly help to create better relations between the states of the Western
Hemisphere. Relations between the United States and Latin America are complex and changing. If they
are based on cooperation, with respect to the principles of self-determination and non-intervention,
they can become stronger. As such, the U.S. must be willing to re-evaluate its foreign policy and
perspectives toward the rest of the Western Hemisphere.
Economic collapse causes nuclear war
Harris and Burrows, PhD European History at Cambridge and NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit, 9
(Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long
Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”
http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf, 6-31-13)
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting
and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended
consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history
may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to
Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful
effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the
sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think
that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways
in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile
economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that
terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal
will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For
believe that the
those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s
most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established
groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated
attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become
self-radicalized, particularly in the
absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most
dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost
certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran
could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire
additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable
deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a
nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could
lead to an unintended
escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close
proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian
missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack.
The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of
Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises.
36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if
protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy
scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in
interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be
essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have
important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as
China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal
stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns
inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
84
could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for
multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East,
cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and
between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
85
AT: Alt Causes To Relations
The embargo has poisoned US-Latin American relations- a 50 year sticking point.
Rathbone, Financial Times Latin American editor, 2012
[John Paul, 9-5-2012, Financial Times Blog, “The ‘Great Game’ of Columbia’s Peace
Process”, http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2012/09/the-great-game-of-colombiaspeace-process/ EJH]
Now take Cuba. For the past half century, it has been the US’s most persistent foreign policy headache
in the region, and one that has poisoned its relations with the rest of Latin America. But now Havana is
playing a key role by hosting the Colombian peace process, while also politely but firmly encouraging the
Farc to put down their guns. Indeed, one can imagine Fidel Castro, that great patriarch of Latin American
revolution, laying his hands on Farc guerrilla leaders and telling them: it’s ok, peace is a kind of
revolutionary victory too.¶ What is in this for Cuba, a country that has always played a long strategic
game? Simple. It wants to be seen as playing a constructive regional role in a way that Washington
cannot ignore. The fact that in these straightened times Colombian peace, abetted by the Cubans, might
also save the US a few hundred millions dollars of aid a year is surely no small thing.¶ Might that be
enough to help end the 50-year embargo, a perennial sticking point in US-Latin American relations?
Perhaps. Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos has said he’d like to see the embargo end.
Washington might also like to see the same, but domestic political opposition has always made that
impossible.¶ So there you can now glimpse the contours of a great regional game. Mr Santos has
launched a peace process that could end a conflict that has caused tens of thousands of deaths. That
is a boon in its own right, and would also corroborate the success of the US initiative, Plan Colombia –
a plus for the US profile in the region.¶ By launching the peace process, Washington’s closest ally in
Latin America, Mr Santos, also grows his regional profile – a plus for him, and also probably the US. At
the same time, Cuba is opening a way that makes it easier for whoever is in Washington to relax the
embargo – potentially another strategic boost for US regional relations. Venezuela, meanwhile, is
helping end a guerrilla-sponsored conflict that contributes to drug smuggling, which in turn creates
regional instability. Who can complain about that? Everyone is a winner.
The Embargo hurts US relations with other Latin American countries- makes the U.S.
perceptually stubborn and discluded us from meetings and alliances.
Malinowski, staff writer for law360 and featured on Forbes.com, 2010
[Nick, 4-29-2010, Law360, “Congress Mulls Over Opening Cuba to Travel, Trade”
http://www.law360.com/articles/164048/congress-mulls-opening-cuba-to-traveltrade EJH]
The current embargo prohibiting trade, travel and most diplomatic contact has done little to effect
change for the Cuban people and has hurt American trade interests, isolating Washington
diplomatically and straining already tense relationships with other Latin American countries, the panel
told members of the trade subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee. ¶ The Travel
Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act, introduced by Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., in
February and referred to the House Foreign Affairs, Agriculture and Financial Services committees,
would prohibit any regulation limiting travel to Cuba and end restrictions on direct transfers from Cuban
financial institutions to their U.S. counterparts. ¶ Thursday's panelists included Reagan administration
Secretary of Agriculture John Block, the Center for International Policy's Wayne Smith, the Washington
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
86
Office on Latin America's Geoff Thale, Jose Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch, Myron Brilliant of
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Michael Kelly of the Creighton University School of Law. ¶ Smith,
who was serving in the U.S. embassy in Havana when the U.S. ended diplomatic relationships with Cuba
in 1961, told the subcommittee that at the time — when Cuba was trying to overthrow other
governments in Latin America and was a staunch ally of the Soviet Union — efforts to isolate and
contain Cuba seemed to make sense, and other nations supported and joined the U.S. in these
measures. ¶ Today, however, Cuba has normal diplomatic and trade relationships with every other
country in the Western Hemisphere, and Washington's inflexible stance on this issue has caused its
allies in the region, including Brazil, to suggest that this stubbornness detracts from its credentials of
leadership, Smith said. ¶ “I thought the United States was supposed to be flexible, but we haven't
adjusted our policy at all,” he said. “Cuba seems to have the same affect the full moon has on
werewolves, and that's been true of every administration.” ¶ Sanctions have not only failed to improve
repression and other human rights abuses in Cuba but have cut American diplomats off from the
people who will make up Havana's next generation of political leaders, Thale said. ¶ Washington's
lack of engagement with Cuba has caused the U.S. to pull out of hemispherewide meetings,
weakening relationships with international partners and negatively affecting national security
interests, such as in the drug trade and human trafficking, issues where Cuba, as a major Caribbean
player, could be an ally, Thale said. ¶ The nationalization of property on the island following Fidel
Castro's revolution in 1959 could be a sticking point in trade normalization efforts because the new
regime took land and intellectual property from American and Cuban citizens, including those who have
since emigrated to the U.S., and still maintains those assets. ¶ While other nations have arranged for the
return of property, the lack of diplomatic relations has left property owners in the U.S. on the outside
of these deals.
The embargo undermines American relations with Latin American countries- relic of
paternalism.
Creamer, political organizer and strategist, 2011
[Robert, 1-18-2011, The Huffington Post, “Changes in US Policy Good First Step—But
it’s Time to Normalize Relations,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robertcreamer/changes-in-us-cuba-policy_b_810161.html EJH]
¶ But to the extent it persists, the policy of isolating Cuba and limiting American travel there not only
limits our freedom -- it actually prevents the presumed goal of our policy -- to open up Cuba.¶ ¶ 3). By
maintaining our economic embargo we penalize the American economy and cost American jobs.¶ ¶ Our
economic "boycott" does not so much prevent Cuba from getting the things its needs (though it
definitely makes the lives of ordinary Cubans more difficult), as it prevents American companies and
farmers from selling them American products.¶ ¶ Creating American jobs should be our government's
number one priority yet the Cuban embargo prevents the sales of American-made products to a
customer that would be ready and willing to buy. The result? Other countries sell Cuba the same
products and benefit by the creation of jobs in their countries rather than the United States.¶ ¶ 4). Our
failure to normalize relations with Cuba undermines American interests throughout the world -- and
particular in Latin America.¶ ¶ U.S. policy towards Cuba has been a major sore point with other
countries in Latin America, who view it as a vestige of Yankee paternalism toward the entire region.
And it is used by those who want to harm America as another piece of anti-American propaganda.¶ ¶
Far from isolating Cuba, we have isolated ourselves. Virtually all of America's major allies have normal
economic and political relationships with Cuba. Last year, the United Nations General Assembly voted
for the seventeenth time -- in seventeen years -- to condemn our economic embargo of Cuba -- this
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
87
time by a vote of 185 to 3.¶ ¶ In December the thirty-three Caribbean and Latin American nations that
are members of the Rio Group voted to give Cuba full membership and called on the U.S. to end the
embargo.¶ ¶ 5). Domestic political support for the embargo -- especially among Cuban Americans in
Florida -- has crumbled.¶ ¶ The proximate political reason for our past Cuba policy has been the large
Cuban American voter block in southern Florida. Many Cuban Americans emigrated here immediately
after the Cuban Revolution half a century ago and were virulently anti-Castro.¶ ¶ In fact, with the
Republican takeover of the House, hard line anti-Cuba Congresswoman Illeana Ros-Lehtinen is now the
Chair of the House Committee on International Relations. She works with a well organized hard-line
lobby, that has raised a large financial war chest to punish Members of Congress who support changing
our relations with Cuba. But Ros-Lehtinen and her hard line allies are increasingly isolated in the Cuban
American community itself.¶ ¶ Polls now show that 67 percent of Cuban Americans support allowing all
Americans to travel to Cuba (Bendixen poll: Conducted April 14-16, 2009 -- Cuban Americans only).¶
Lifting the Embargo key to Latin American relations- explodes old US stereotypes.
Tisdale, assistant editor of the Guardian, 2013
[Simon, 3-5-2013, The Guardian, “Death of Hugo Chavez brings chance of a fresh start
for US and Latin America,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugochavez-dead-us-latin-america/print EJH]
"For the last two decades, US domestic politics have too often driven Washington's Latin America
agenda – whether on issues of trade, immigration, drugs, guns or that perennial political albatross,
Cuba, long driven by the supposedly crucial 'Cuban vote' in Florida," she said.¶ Obama could change this
dynamic if he tried and one way to do it would be to unpick the Cuban problem, which continues to
colour the way Latin Americans view Washington.¶ "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.¶ A move by Obama to end travel
restrictions and the trade embargo on Cuba would be applauded across the region, explode old
stereotypes about gringo oppressors, and help build confidence with Venezuela, the Castro regime's
key backer, she suggested.¶ If Obama were to match a Cuban rapprochement with initiatives to curb
US gun sales (a major concern for violence-plagued Mexico), reduce domestic demand for illegal drugs
(a priority for Colombia), and settle on fair immigration rules, he would be well on the way to
inaugurating a new era in political relations with Latin America.
The Embargo demonizes the US in the eyes of Latin Americans.
Piccone, deputy director of foreign policy at Brookings, 2013,
[Ted, 1-17-2013, brookings.edu, “Opening to Havana,”
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/01/opening-to-havana EJH]
Current U.S. policy long ago outlived its usefulness and is counterproductive to advancing the goal of
helping the Cuban people. Instead it gives Cuban officials the ability to demonize the United States in
the eyes of Cubans, other Latin Americans and the rest of the world, which annually condemns the
embargo at the United Nations. At this rate, given hardening attitudes in the region against U.S. policy,
the Cuba problem may even torpedo your next presidential Summit of the Americas in Panama in 2015.
It is time for a new approach: an initiative to test the willingness of the Cuban government to engage
constructively alongside an effort to empower the Cuban people.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
88
Cuba is the main sticking point with the rest of Latin America- Hillary Clinton’s trip.
Ghattas, political sciences degree from the American University of Beirut, 2010
[Kim, 3-1-2010, BBC News, “Hillary Clinton Begins Latin American Tour,”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8543122.stm EJH]
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is starting a five-day tour of Latin America, with her first visit to
countries like Chile and Brazil.¶ She will also attend the inauguration of the Uruguayan President and
former guerilla fighter Jose Mujica.¶ The US secretary of state was expecting to spend a day in Chile on
Tuesday.¶ State Department officials said she would still be stopping in Santiago, but the agenda of her
visit may change in the wake of the earthquake there.¶ Hillary Clinton may be going to Latin America, but
she will be partly focused on Iran.¶ Question time¶ Washington is pushing for a fourth round of UN
sanctions against Tehran.¶ Brazil, a rising regional player with civilian nuclear power, currently sits on the
UN Security Council and it has been reluctant to get tough with Iran.¶ The talks in Brasilia will be a test
for Mrs Clinton as she seeks to revamp Washington's credibility south of its border.¶ After promising
to turn a new page with its southern neighbours, the Obama administration has brought little change
to US policies in Latin America and has paid little attention to the region.¶ Washington's policy of
isolating Cuba is still the main sticking point, and Mrs Clinton is likely to face tough questions
throughout her trip.
If US relations don't improve in Latin America US credibility will explode and cause
more tension in Latin America
Inter-American Dialogue, US center for policy analysis, exchange, and communication
on issues in Western Hemisphere affairs’ 12
(Remaking the relationship The US and Latin America
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, EB)
Relations between the United States and Latin America are at a curious juncture . In the past decade,
most Latin American countries have made enormous progress in managing their economies and
reducing inequality and, especially, poverty, within a democratic framework . These critical changes
have brought greater autonomy, expanded global links, and growing self-confidence . It is now the
United States that is in a sour mood, struggling with a still weak economic recovery, diminished
international stature and influence, and fractured politics at home . These recent changes have
profoundly affected Inter-American relations . While relations are today cordial and largely free of the
antagonisms of the past, they also seem without vigor and purpose . Effective cooperation in the
Americas, whether to deal with urgent problems or to take advantage of new opportunities, has been
disappointing . The Inter-American Dialogue’s report is a call to all nations of the hemisphere to take
stock, to rebuild cooperation, and to reshape relations in a new direction . All governments in the
hemisphere should be more attentive to emerging opportunities for fruitful collaboration on global
and regional issues ranging across economic integration, energy security, protection of democracy, and
climate change . The United States must regain its credibility in the region by dealing seriously with an
unfinished agenda of problems—including immigration, drugs, and Cuba—that stands in the way of a
real partnership . To do so, it needs the help of Latin America and the Caribbean . If the current state of
affairs continues, the strain between the United States and Latin America could worsen, adversely
affecting the interests and wellbeing of all in the hemisphere . There is a great deal at stake . This
report offers a realistic assessment of the relationship within a changing regional and global context and
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
89
sets out an agenda of old and new business that need urgent attention . A collaborative effort should
begin immediately at the sixth Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia
Cuban US relations is the strongest tension between the US and Latin America
Hakim, president emeritus and senior fellow of the Inter-American Dialogue, 3/27
(Peter, Reuters, Post Chavez: Can Us rebuild Latin American ties, March 27th 2013
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/27/post-chavez-can-u-s-rebuild-latin-american-ties/,
EB)
Cuban ruler Raul Castro, another determined U.S. adversary, was elected to head the Community of
Latin American and Caribbean Nations (CELAC), a new organization that includes every nation in the
Western Hemisphere — except the United States and Canada. Next year’s meeting is scheduled to be
in Havana, though CELAC’s charter requires that members be governed democratically. At the 2012
meeting of the Summit of the Americas (every country of the hemisphere except Cuba), the discussion,
despite Washington’s objections, focused on two topics: drug policy and Cuba. Both are sources of
long-standing tension between the United States and Latin America. The assembled Latin American
heads of state closed the meeting by warning Washington that, unless Cuba is included in future
summits, they would no longer participate.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Leadership**
90
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
91
UQ – Foreign Influence High
Cuba has experienced an increasing foreign influence- most notably Venezuela &
China
Erikson, Senior Advisor for Western Hemisphere Affairs @ the U.S. Department of
State, ‘05
(Daniel, ASCE, 2005, “CUBA, CHINA, VENEZUELA: NEW DEVELOPMENTS”,
http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume15/pdfs/erikson.pdf,
6/23/13 , PD)
Cuba’s international relations have undergone significant shifts in recent years, with old alliances
unraveling and new partnerships emerging. In particular, the Cuban government of Fidel Castro has
embarked on a path of deeper engagement and cooperation with Venezuela and China that has
transformed those two countries into the most important international allies of Cuba today. Since
2001, the rising influence of Venezuela and China constitute the most significant realignment of
Cuba’s foreign relations since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. This is all the more
striking because it has occurred against the backdrop of modest U.S. efforts to tighten existing
sanctions and hasten change in Cuba. Without question, the emergence of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez
has provoked the most dramatic change in Cuba’s international relations in this hemisphere. Elected
to the helm of the most significant oil-producing country in Latin America in the late 1990s, Chavez has
steadily proceeded down a path of closer political and economic ties with Cuba. After his temporary
removal by force in April 2002, Chavez has become increasingly reliant on the advice and counsel of
Fidel Castro to help maintain his power in Venezuela. At the same time, Chavez has offered hundreds of
thousands of barrels of discounted oil to the Cuban government, which has helped the island to keep its
rickety economy afloat despite tougher U.S. measures. The scope and nature of the Venezuela-Cuba
relationship has also sparked concerns that the two governments may seek to advance proposals that
run counter to the strengthening of market-oriented democracy in the region. A second major shift in
Cuba’s international profile is its deepening ties with the People’s Republic of China, a country of 1.3
billion people that has achieved sustained growth through introducing market reform into its
communist political system. China has prioritized Cuba as a key partner in Latin America, and quickly
surged to become the island’s third largest trading partner after Venezuela and Spain. China’s interest
in Cuba has led to frequent high-level meetings, a series of economic cooperation agreements, and
growing exchanges in the areas of science, technology, and defense. China plans to invest millions in
Cuba to help secure needed commodities such as nickel and agricultural products, and it has been a
strong supporter of Cuban positions in international forums such as the United Nations. The emergence
of China as an economic power has strongly benefited the Cuban economy and become a crucial
component of the island’s economic planning. Cuba’s strong ties with Venezuela and China contrast
sharply with its deteriorating relations with other partners. While the European Union remains an
important economic player, Cuba’s dissident crackdown in 2003 and subsequent hostile rhetoric have
cooled relations considerably, despite moves by Spain to help improve ties. In Latin America, Cuba has
experienced a partial renaissance as a large swathe of South American countries have elected center-left
leaders, including Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. While most countries have been hesitant to
deepen ties with Cuba, almost all have at least established normal diplomatic relations and several have
stepped up their trade and investment with the island. Meanwhile, Cuba’s once staunch alliance with
Mexico has verged on total breakdown during the administration of President Vicente Fox, mainly
because the Mexican government has backed successive UN resolutions condemning the human rights
situation in Cuba. Of all the world’s major capitals, only in Beijing and Caracas are Cuba’s claims as a
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
92
defender of the interests of the third world so attentively received, and only China and Venezuela are
attempting to harness Cuba as a vehicle for pursuing their own national interests and international
objectives. Recent evidence suggests that any contemplation of Cuba’s present or future must extend
to include the scope and implications of the island’s deepening links with Venezuela and China.
Foreign involvement in Cuba by Venezuela & China is edging out the U.S.
Erikson, Senior Advisor for Western Hemisphere Affairs @ the U.S. Department of
State, ‘05
(Daniel, ASCE, 2005, “CUBA, CHINA, VENEZUELA: NEW DEVELOPMENTS”,
http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume15/pdfs/erikson.pdf,
6/23/13 , PD)
U.S. officials have expressed concern that the two countries have entered into a strategic alliance to
thwart U.S. objectives in the region. During his time as the U.S. special envoy to the Western
Hemisphere, Otto Reich argued that “we certainly see a Venezuela-Cuba axis which is broadening and
deepening and which is not conducive to the promotion of democracy and human rights.”5 Indeed,
some U.S. officials have expressed deep concerns that the mix of Castro’s smarts and Venezuela’s cash
could evolve into a hotbed of anti-American sentiment, lead to the rise of new leftist movements, and
even pose a security threat to the United States and its allies in the region. The collapse of the Bolivian
government of Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada in 2003, followed by the resignation of his successor Carlos
Mesa in 2005, and the rise of indigenous leader Evo Morales, have generated rumors regarding this type
of involvement. Outgoing Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega has described Fidel Castro as
“nostalgic for destabilizing elected governments” and “increasingly provocative.”6 It is true that many
indigenous leaders express admiration for Castro and Chavez at such left-wing gatherings as the
“Bolivarian Congress of the People,” convened in Caracas in November 2003. At the same time, Bolivia’s
deep poverty, social tensions, and history of racial exclusion hold considerable explanatory power
regarding the country’s recent instability.7
93
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
UQ – Russia
Russia is establishing military relations with Cuba
Meyer & Anatoly, Research Fellow at the School of Social and Political Sciences, the
University of Sydney, ‘12
(Henry, Temkin, Bloomberg Business Week, July 2012, “Russia Seeks Naval Bases in
Cold War Allies Cuba, Vietnam”, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0727/russia-seeks-naval-supply-bases-in-cold-war-allies-cuba-vietnam, PD)
Russia is in talks to set up naval bases in former Cold War allies Cuba and Vietnam as President
Vladimir Putin undertakes the country’s biggest military overhaul since the Soviet era. “We are
working on establishing navy bases outside Russia,” Vice-Admiral Viktor Chirkov, the navy’s
commander-in- chief since May, said in an interview with the state-run RIA Novosti news service and
confirmed by the navy. “We aim to set up resupply bases in Cuba, the Seychelles and Vietnam.”
Russia’s intentions for overseas military expansion threaten to further strain relations with the U.S.
when the former superpower rivals are at loggerheads over American missile-shield plans and how to
respond to the fighting in Syria. Putin’s government plans to spend 23 trillion rubles ($712 billion) this
decade on defense spending, including 4.4 trillion rubles next year, an increase of 19 percent. “There’s a
lot of tension between Washington and Moscow right now as Syria is creating a lot of bad feeling
between them,” said Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent defense analyst in Moscow. “This will be seen
by some in the U.S. as the Russian bear growling in its lair.” Pentagon spokesman George Little said
Russia has “a right to enter into military agreements and relationships” with other nations, just as the
U.S. does. He didn’t raise concern about Russia seeking military access to Cuba, which lies near the
mouth of the Gulf of Mexico and is 145 kilometers (90 miles) south of the Florida Keys. ‘Red Line’ U.S.
Air Force General Norton Schwartz in 2008 warned Russia not to cross a “red line” by stationing
bombers in Cuba, where the deployment of Soviet missiles brought Moscow and Washington close to
nuclear conflict in 1962. Schwartz commented after the newspaper Izvestia said Russia planned to
build a refueling base for strategic aircraft in the Communist island state in response to U.S. plans to
deploy elements of a missile- defense system in Europe. The Russian Defense Ministry later denied the
report. Under the deal that ended the 1962 Cuban crisis, the Soviet Union withdrew its missiles and
pledged not to station offensive weapons on the island. Russian military cooperation with Cuba ended in
2002 after Russia closed its radar base at Lourdes, Russia’s only intelligence-gathering center in the
Western hemisphere, which had been operating since the 1960s.
Russia is establishing military relations with Cuba
The Wall Street Journal, 5/18
(The Wall Street Journal, 5/18/13, “Cuba Parliament Leader: Ties With Russia Under
Full Expansion”, http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130518-700836.html, PD)
HAVANA (Xinhua)--Relations between Cuba and Russia are under full expansion, Esteban Lazo,
president of Cuban parliament, said Friday. Lazo made the remarks after signing an agreement with
the visiting leader of Russia's senate, Valentina Matviyenko, to boost the parliamentary cooperation
between the two countries. The delegation of the Russian Senate arrived Thursday in Havana, headed
by Ms. Matviyenko. Mr. Lazo said the visit would boost the "excellent" historical ties between both
the governments and the peoples. He also called on Russia to increase the investments to the island
country. Mr. Lazo stressed the importance of the current Russian investments in Cuba's oil sector and
94
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
expressed the interest of the Cuban government in extending the cooperation to other areas, such as
nickel production, tourism and agriculture. Cuba isn't just a strategic partner for Russia, but also a
friend for whom Russia feels special affection, due to historical connections, Ms. Matviyenko said.
Havana and Moscow were close allies during the Cold War era, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union
in 1991, the relations cooled. Since 2005, the bilateral relations have began to improve with the
resumption of mutual high-level visits. Currently, Russia is Cuba's ninth largest trade partner, with a
trade volume of $224 million in 2011, according to official figures.
Russia is using Cuba as a launch pad for extending its influence in Latin America
Luxner, news editor of The Washington Diplomat, 9
(Larry, April 2009, “Using Old Friend Cuba as Its Base, Russia Reasserts Its Latin
American Influence,”
http://washdiplomat.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6257:usi
ng-old-friend-cuba-as-its-base-russia-reasserts-its-latin-influence-&catid=976:april2009&Itemid=257, accessed 6/26/13, IC)
But lately, the
Kremlin is reaching out to its old friend — and making its presence felt close to American
shores.¶ In fact, while international attention remains riveted on Moscow’s growing influence in its backyard, namely in Kyrgyzstan, Georgia
and Ukraine, the former “Soviet sphere” isn’t the only place where Russia is trying to reassert its authority. Just as Russia announced
plans to modernize its armed forces, boost its nuclear weapons, and build military bases in the Georgian
breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, halfway across the world, it’s also been staging a resurgence of sorts in
Latin America — using Cuba as its base of operations.¶ Last October, top-ranked Russian Lt. Gen. Alexander
Maslov visited Cuba and signed key treaties in information technology and communications with his
Cuban counterpart. Later that month, a massive Russian Orthodox cathedral was inaugurated in Old Havana —
even though virtually no Cubans belong to the Russian Orthodox Church.¶ Then in November, President Dmitry
Medvedev visited Havana, marking the first such visit of a Russian leader to the Cuban capital since
2000. On Dec. 19, a Russian anti-submarine destroyer and two logistical warships docked in Havana Bay —
in what AP correspondent Will Weissert called a “thumb-your-nose port call” aimed at Washington in waters just 90 miles from Florida. Russian
sailors in white-and-tan dress uniforms stood at attention on the deck of the Admiral Chabanenko destroyer, which chugged into Havana Bay
amid a cloud of gray smoke.¶ Russian officials said the visit was non-military, an extension of a tour that included a stopover in Venezuela,
where Russia staged a series of joint war games that included a large flotilla of Russian warships. But outsiders
say the idea was to
flex some muscle in America’s backyard after the Bush administration supported the former Soviet republic of Georgia in its
brief war with Russia.¶ More recently in mid-March, a top Russian military official confirmed that the Kremlin was
considering using bases in Cuba or Venezuela as logistics stops for its long-distance bomber patrols. “If the
two chiefs of state display such a political will, we are ready to fly there,” said Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, head of Russia’s strategic aviation
forces, also noting that “there
are four or five airfields in Cuba with 4,000-meter-long runways, which
absolutely suit us.”¶ The Pentagon though quickly mocked the announcement. “That would be quite a long way for those old planes to
fly,” Geoff Morrell, Pentagon press secretary, told the Associated Foreign Press.¶ No decision has been made on the Cuban or Venezuelan
stopovers, but outsiders predict the move is as much about giving Moscow added leverage in talks with Washington as it is about building up a
military presence within range of the United States.¶ It could also be good old-fashioned payback. After all, it’s no secret that the Kremlin is still
annoyed by what it sees as U.S. encroachment on its neighborhood, including Washington’s efforts to build a missile defense shield in Poland
and the Czech Republic as well as American support for Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO.¶ “Part of what motivated them was irritation at
what they perceived as the Bush administration’s interference on their periphery,” said noted Cuba-watcher Phil Peters, vice president of the
Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. “The missile defense system and the U.S. relationship with Georgia clearly irritated them, and I think their
building up a relationship with Cuba and Venezuela is their way of responding.”¶ But Peters doesn’t think Russia’s increased presence in Cuba is
cause for concern. “I don’t think the Cubans would put their own security at risk,” he said, alluding to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which
nearly pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war. “The Cubans are more cautious than anyone in that regard.”¶ Smith agrees.¶ “A few
months ago, the Russians were really pissed off at us because of the missile shield program in Europe; they indicated that their strategic
bombers could fly out of Cuban airfields. But this was not an official statement. Then they sent a military mission to Cuba, and it was expected
that they’d sign some sort of agreement,” Smith explained. “But the mission came back with nothing. A Cuban military spokesman said his
country had no interest in a closer military relationship with Russia, because they’d been down that road before.”¶ To that end, Cuba seems to
be pursuing a policy of practical engagement with its old benefactor. “What Cuba and Russia are doing today is using each other for mutual
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
95
convenience,” says Daniel Erikson, director of Cuba programs at the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue.¶ “For Cuba, this is part of a
broader strategy of diversifying foreign relations and trying to secure new sources of credit which Russia has promised,” Erikson told The
Washington Diplomat. “In addition to that, there was so much bad blood between Fidel Castro and the Russian leadership following the
collapse of the Soviet Union. Now that Raúl [Castro] is president of Cuba and Medvedev is president of Russia, that’s enough of a leadership
transition for both sides to let bygones be bygones.”¶ On Jan. 28, Raúl arrived in Moscow for a weeklong state visit — his first since 1984 — that
culminated with a “strategic partnership” between the two leaders. A total of 34 agreements were signed covering everything from the
creation of joint ventures to cooperation in biotechnology to the establishment of a joint electronic scientific research center. ¶ “Cuba’s
objectives in renewing and expanding its relations with Russia are obvious,” said Jaime Suchlicki, director of the
University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies. “Russia is a major power with a permanent seat in the United
Nations Security Council. Cuba desperately needs all the foreign aid and credits it can get. Russia has been a
traditional supplier of weapons and spare parts to Cuba, and Castro is interested in modernizing his
armed forces.”¶ There’s also the petroleum issue, Suchlicki added, noting that Venezuela currently provides 92,000 barrels of oil a day on
credit that Cuba will never be able to repay. “Russia can be an alternate source for oil if Venezuela were to fall apart or [Hugo] Chávez is kicked
out, although I don’t think this is going to happen,” Suchlicki said.¶ The other side of the coin is Moscow’s motivation. The financially strapped
Russians would also like to recover a part of Cuba’s billion debt, most of which dates from the Soviet era.¶ The economics of necessity is also
why Smith doesn’t seem overly concerned with Moscow’s latest overtures to both Cuba and Venezuela, including a recent offer of billion in
credits to Venezuelan President Chávez to buy weapons and Russian nuclear technology.¶ “This doesn’t mean that Russia and Cuba are going
back to their former relationship, but given the economic distress in Cuba, having more economic ties with Russia just makes sense,” Smith
said. “At
a time when U.S. standing in Latin America has never been so low — thanks to Bush — Russia is
simply taking advantage of that. They’re trying to reach out and strengthen their relations with Latin
America.”¶ However, it’s not only Venezuela that’s benefiting from military ties with Moscow. Although Venezuela is the largest purchaser
of armaments, Argentina has bought helicopters, radars and air traffic control systems. Peru has also acquired Russian weaponry, while Brazil,
Mexico and Colombia all pursue cordial military relations, according to Odeen Ishmael, Guyana’s former ambassador to the United States and
an expert on regional politics.¶ Russia’s trade with Brazil surpassed billion in 2008, an amount likely to reach billion by 2010, said Ishmael,
noting that Medvedev recently spent three days in Brazil, discussing the development of bilateral ties in oil and gas production, nuclear power,
agriculture and space exploration.¶ “Evidently, the expanded military relations between Russia and Venezuela, as well as with other countries in
the region, are worrying to the United States, which has traditionally dominated the arms market in Latin America,” said Ishmael. “Thus,
Russia’s military investment can easily undermine U.S. influence and some military analysts feel that
this may whip up an arms race in the region.”¶ As such, Suchlicki sees a more sinister side to Russia’s new fascination with
Cuba. “The Russians are interested in rebuilding the Lourdes eavesdropping facility [which was dismantled in 2002 at
the insistence of the U.S. government]. I think they’re going to do it under the guise of creating a satellite tracking station [in Cuba].”¶ The
objective, he charged, would be to provide the Russians an important nearby listening post to spy on U.S.
military, civilian and industrial communications.¶
China's expanding now--US influence is key
Mallén, Reporter for the International Business Times, 7/28
(Patricia, IBT, “Latin America Increases Relations With China: What Does That Mean For The US?”
http://www.ibtimes.com/latin-america-increases-relations-china-what-does-mean-us-1317981,
7,28,2013, EB)
As if to confirm the declining hegemony of the United States as the ruling global superpower, China is
gaining influence in its hemispheric "backyard," Secretary of State John Kerry's unintentionally insulting
designation for Latin America. China has had its sights on Latin America for the past decade and is now
positioning itself as a competitive trade partner in the region. The populous, rapidly developing Asian
nation covets oil, soybeans and gold, of which Latin America has plenty, and has been slowly but steadily
increasing its presence and its trade with several countries there.¶ The U.S., whose history of blocking
outside political influence in Latin America going back to the Monroe Doctrine, has been directing its
attention elsewhere, as Michael Cerna of the China Research Center observed. “[The U.S.'] attention of
late has been focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, and Latin America fell lower and lower on America’s list
of priorities. China has been all too willing to fill any void,” Cerna said. Between 2000 and 2009, China
increased its two-way trade with Latin America by 660 percent, from $13 billion at the beginning of the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
96
21st century to more than $120 billion nine years later. Latin American exports to China reached $41.3
billion, almost 7 percent of the region's total exports. China’s share of the region’s trade was less than
10 percent in 2000; by 2009, the number had jumped to 12 percent.¶ As impressive as that growth is, the
numbers still pale in comparison to the U.S.' stats in its commercial relationship with Latin America. The
U.S. still holds more than half of the total trade, adding up to $560 billion in 2008. Notably, though,
America’s trade participation in Latin America has remained static, while China is closing the gap more
and more each year -- having already surpassed the U.S. in some countries, including powerhouse
Brazil.¶ Concomitant with this burgeoning interest from the Far East, Latin America is undergoing an
economic rebirth. After decades of devastating economic crises, the region is experiencing
unprecedented growth: On average, annual GDP growth for Latin American countries will be 3.7 percent
this year, according to United Nations estimates, almost double the average for the rest of the world.
That has prompted several countries to form quasi-governmental entities to further promote the
progress of the region.¶ One such entity is the recently formed Pacific Alliance. Born with the specific
goal of increasing relations with Asia, its members include Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Peru, which
together represent half of the region’s total exports and 35 percent of its GDP. In a meeting in
Colombian capital Bogotá last month, the Pacific Alliance signed an agreement to open its member
countries' economies to Asian markets; the U.S., despite an invitation, did not attend.¶ Though a
recent trip to the region by Vice President Joe Biden seems to run counter to the Pacific Alliance snub,
China’s President Xi Jinping has also visited recently, and likewise met with Latin American leaders,
illustrating how the two global powers are going after the same prize. Biden traveled to Colombia,
Trinidad and Tobago and Brazil in May, with the last leg of his trip coinciding with the beginning of Xi’s in
Trinidad, before jumping to Costa Rica and Mexico. Both leaders met with several Latin American
presidents and discussed trade and cooperation. The outcomes of their trips were very different,
however, Trinidad and Tobago’s main newspaper, Newsday, called the visit a “historic occasion” and a
“visit from China to a good friend.” Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said she was committed to
boosting relations with China and accepted an invitation to Beijing for November of this year. In Costa
Rica, Xi signed a $400 million loan to build a cross-country road and reaffirmed relations with its main
ally in the region. Costa Rica is the only country in Latin America that sides with China in the mainlandTaiwanese dispute and does not recognize the island as a nation.¶ Even more significant was Xi’s visit to
Mexico. President Enrique Peña Nieto welcomed his Chinese counterpart, whom he had visited in
Beijing in April, and made his intentions clear: Mexico wants closer trade relations with China, with
whom it has a gap of $45 billion in export and import -- an important development considering that
Mexico is, for now, America's biggest trade partner in the world. Biden’s visit was not as successful.
His meeting in Trinidad and Tobago was called “brutal and tense” by Persad-Bissessar, and Colombian
journalist Andrés Oppenheimer deemed the trip a sympathy visit after Secretary John Kerry called Latin
America “Washington’s backyard” in a much-berated slip last April. While Biden had pleasant meetings
in Rio and Bogotá, no agreements were signed during his trip.¶ Perhaps the biggest development in
China’s investment in the area is the recent decision by the Nicaraguan congress to allow a Chinese
company to build a canal through the country. Although still in the proposal stages, the project would
bring profound change to the geopolitics of the region -- and even the world. If built, the canal could
significantly affect commerce through the Panama Canal, which, though it is now part of Panama's
domain, was built by the U.S. and remains a symbol of the nation's historical dominance in the region. ¶
That dominance is in decline, some Latin American leaders have started making decidedly antiAmerican policies. The most notable was the late Venezuelan Comandante Hugo Chávez, who was very
vocal about his disdain for the U.S., but he is far from the only one. Bolivia's President Evo Morales, for
instance, kicked out USAID after Kerry's verbal slip, and has gone so far as to ban Coca-Cola from the
country. ¶ But now it's Ecuador bumping heads with its northern neighbor, mostly in regard to Ecuador
granting entry to NSA-secrets leaker Edward Snowden. President Rafael Correa openly said that they
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
97
would welcome the whistle-blower because he was a "free man," no matter what the U.S. said.
Disagreements between the governments have led to the cancellation of a special trade agreement,
which Ecuador has called "an instrument of blackmail. Beyond the lack of understanding with its former
main trade partner, why is Latin America so smitten with China? Kevin Gallagher, a professor of
international relations at Boston University, says China speaks to the region’s newfound confidence.
“China is offering attractive deals to Latin American economies while the United States continues to
lecture and dictate,” Gallagher wrote for The Globalist. “For too long, the United States has relied on a
rather imperial mechanism, just telling Latin America what it needs,” he added. “Compare that to
China’s approach: It offers Latin America what it wants.”¶ Gallagher argued that the U.S.’ biggest offer
to Latin America is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which offers access to the U.S. market on three
conditions: deregulate financial markets, adopt intellectual property provisions that give preferences
to U.S. firms, and allow U.S. firms to sue governments for violating any of its conditions.¶ China, on the
other hand, has been providing more financing to Latin America than the World Bank, the InterAmerican Development Bank and the U.S. Export-Import Bank combined since 2003, with no previous
conditions and very few strings attached.¶ “Latin America is very sensitive to any notions of
conditionality due to painful past experiences with the IMF and the World Bank,” Gallagher said.
“China makes sure that its policy is not based on conditionalities.”¶ Gallagher said the U.S. should awake
from its past slumber and stop taking Latin America for granted.¶ Shlomo Ben-Ami, vice president of the
Toledo International Center for Peace and former Israeli foreign minister, takes a different stance. He
argues that China's advancement in the region does not automatically equate with American loss of
preeminence. U.S. exports to Latin America continue to rise (by 94 percent over the past six years), as do
imports (87 percent in the same period), and America continues to be the biggest foreign investor in the
area.¶ Perhaps even more crucial are America's cultural and historical ties to the region, Ben-Ami said.
“Given the extraordinary growth of Latinos’ influence in the U.S., it is almost inconceivable that America
could lose its unique status in the region to China,” he said.¶ Still, Gallagher and Ben-Ami agree that the
U.S. needs to step up, both economically and diplomatically, to compete with new influences in a part of
the world that was until recently widely considered America’s domain.¶ “Gone are the days when
military muscle and the politics of subversion could secure U.S. influence -- in Latin America or anywhere
else,” Ben-Ami said.¶ “It is high time for the U.S. government to undertake a true rethink of its
economic policy toward Latin America,” Gallagher observed. “Very soon, it might be too late.”
Russian hegemony is growing in Latin America—economic and military ties, and even
joint naval drills with Venezuela
Walle, research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 12
(Walter, 5/8/12, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “Russia Turns to the South for
Military and Economic Alliances,” http://www.coha.org/russia-turns-to-the-south-formilitary-and-economic-alliances/, accessed 6/26/13, IC)
Russian-Latin American relations are relatively warm these days, especially when it comes to a number of seemingly leftleaning countries such as Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. Nonetheless, Washington’s indifference to these countries may
have pushed these governments further into Moscow’s diplomatic embrace. The United States appears to have
calculatedly severed any sort of close relations with these left-leaning nations, and has been prone to criticize them with the same degree of
careless indifference as it has of Russia itself. In addition, these resident dynamics have provided the region with a growing autonomy; as
Argentinean president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner aptly stated, “the world has changed, Latin America is nobody’s backyard.”[1] This
represents a full shift from Cold War politics, when the U.S. supported authoritarian regimes throughout the region in order to act as a firewall
to contain Soviet influence within the hemisphere. In fact, much
of the ever-growing presence of Russia in Latin
America is due to Moscow’s aspirations to return to global preeminence, coinciding with Washington’s
increasingly unsympathetic view toward a number of these left-leaning Latin American countries. Notably, Russia has been able to
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
98
exert its influence on an expanding agenda of mostly military and energy issues through a series of
existing ties, as well as through allying itself with Central American nations to fight ever-changing drug trafficking trends. As the U.S. has
curtailed military and economic assistance to some emerging countries in Latin America, Russia emerged as a pivotal ally for some and a
preferred alternative for others.¶ Colombia and Venezuela, a Proxy Conflict?¶ With Russia’s new relationships with leftist Latin American
governments and the U.S.’ increasingly aimless presence in the region, one can discern a growing interaction among regional actors. In fact, this
new direction seems to be reminiscent of a slow return to a Cold War modus operandi. As Carácas modernizes its army with Russian
technology[2], Bogota is likewise being buttressed by the U.S., with its “Plan Colombia” (an international initiative to fight drug trafficking), and
other countries like Israel[3] and Spain[4]. While both Venezuela and Colombia claim that they have decided to arm themselves for legitimate
motives (Colombia as part of the U.S. “Plan Colombia” to combat drug trafficking and Venezuela for defensive purposes against a purported
U.S. threat), this growing tension should not be taken lightly. In 2008, the Vice-president of Colombia, Francisco Santos Calderón, asked his
Russian counterpart to halt arms sales to Venezuela in exchange for military and economic cooperation.[5] Furthermore, Colombian and U.S.
officials have charged Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez of arming the Colombian guerrilla group, the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias
de Colombia – Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), an insurgent group that represents a persistent disruptive factor between several
Latin American countries. However, in what appeared to be part of an ongoing effort to restore relations between these two countries, in April
of 2011 Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, stated that the FARC was no longer operating out of Venezuela[6] , which represented a very
conciliatory posture on Bogota’s part.¶ Russia’s Main Clients¶ Aside
from Venezuela and Colombia, other important
regional players in Russian-Latin American relations include Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador
and Peru, among others. In November 2009, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa signed far-reaching pacts with
Moscow regarding cooperation on security and defense, even though Ecuador’s constitution “forbids taking on foreign
debt for arm purchases,”[7] In addition, with the help of Moscow, the Andean nation hopes to develop nuclear
technology to meet a portion of its energy needs. Coupled with President Correa, in April 2010, Bolivian President Evo Morales
asked then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to promote a greater Russian presence in the Southern
Hemisphere.[8]¶ Exemplary of this, Bolivia, like Venezuela and Ecuador, also has also invested in Russian technology; for example, the
Russian aerospace company Ilyushin plans to build a regional maintenance center for its Antonov An-148 model in Bolivia.[9] Furthermore,
Moscow approved a 100 million USD credit line for La Paz in order to purchase a variety of military
equipment, such as helicopters to combat drug trafficking,[10] and a new presidential aircraft to replace the seriouslyoutdated American model from the 1970s that Morales currently utilizes.[11] However, it seems that negotiations between La Paz and Moscow
regarding the war against illicit drugs have stalled: Without explanation, Bolivia signed deals with the U.S. and Brazil in March of 2012, and has
demonstrated a willingness to do the same with Colombia.[12] Nonetheless, at the upcoming G20 summit in June, Russia intends to propose a
new strategy to combat drug trafficking[13] in an apparent attempt to reassert its influence in Latin America. Similarly, Brazil
has stated
its hope to modernize its armed forces with Russian technology. In 2008 the two nations signed a
contract whereby both countries will cooperate in building a fifth generation jet fighter as well as new
satellite launch vehicles.[14] However, some are skeptical regarding the sought-after agreement, because Russia “may limit the
transfer of technology for the fighter jets,” Peru too has followed analogous steps as Bolivia and Brazil. The Inca nation bought Russian
military technology as well; such as Mi 35 helicopters to deploy against drug trafficking and to combat the insurgency.[15]¶ In addition
to military cooperation, energy cooperation has been pursued by Russia and Latin America. For instance, much of Venezuela’s credit, which
enables it to flex its military muscle, has come from Chávez welcoming Russian oil companies to drill in Venezuelan oil fields.[16] Moreover,
Argentina has expressed an interest in securing Russian cooperation for the construction of two
nuclear power stations, each costing around 4.5 billion USD. [17] Meanwhile Brazil has signed cooperation agreements with Russia to
aid in the development of nuclear energy capacity;[18] likewise there could be assistance between the two countries to process Uranium and
construct nuclear reactors. Finally, Russia’s
longtime ally, Cuba, is now looking to Moscow for help in pursuing
oil exploration and development prospects. Furthermore, under the terms of signed agreements between
La Habana and Moscow, cooperation will allow for “mining, agriculture, transportation, tourism,
banking…”[19]¶ Moscow’s Approach to the Drug War & Judicial Ties¶ Additionally, Moscow seeks opportunities to scout links with Central
American nations to fight drug trafficking.[20] In contrast to American planned initiatives, like Plan Colombia or the Mérida Initiative for
Mexico, aimed at combating the trafficking of drugs through military means, Russia has proposed the “Rainbow-3”, a plan to manage the drug
trade through development and job creation. Notably, Rainbow-3 would raise the drug issue to a new level of international involvement,
through the UN Security Council. Viktor Ivanov, director of the Russian Federal Drug Control Service, has criticized the U.S. approach for not
focusing on “the elimination of the social causes of drug production, such as unemployment and poverty.”[21] Furthermore, the Russian plan
will provide special training and custom-tailored courses for the police forces of Central American countries at no cost to their governments.¶ In
a similar fashion, Russia wants to establish judicial cooperation with Latin American and Caribbean countries; such ties will focus on the
crackdown of “narco-trafficking, organized crime, trafficking in arms, organs, and persons, corruption at the state and private level, and against
kidnapping of kids and airplanes and ships,”[22] The fundamental premise will be to enhance justice through a series of exchanges of
methodologies and legislative acts linking the region and Russia. On the other hand, it is difficult to predict how effective such cooperation will
be achieved through uproar cooperation models when both Russia and a number of Latin American and Caribbean nations are not particularly
known for having the best transparency levels involving corruption practices.¶ A Pseudo-Cold War Policy¶ Quite clearly, Russia’s interest in Latin
America is escalating. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, argued in his article, “The New Stage of Development of Russian-Latin American
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
99
Relations,” that there is great attractiveness in establishing bilateral relations, especially when three of the top twenty emerging economies Mexico, Brazil and Argentina- are in Latin America.[23] Lavrov has also stated that the Russian Federation has an interest in joining the InterAmerican Development Bank, perhaps a move to better accommodate Russian interests in the region, while at the same time neutralizing
American influence.¶ Demonstrably, Russia
has been developing cooperative relationships with prominent
organizational bodies of the region, such as the OAS (Organization of American States), and has ratified visa-free
travel agreements with countries like Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Chile, and
Argentina. In his article, Lavrov argues that Russia’s intention behind quests for partnerships is the establishment of non-ideologized
relationships with Latin American countries, relationships that could be of mutual benefit to all parties involved. ¶ However, the Russian stance
on Latin America ultimately may be cause for apprehension. The
establishment of bilateral, cordial relations between Russia
and Latin American countries could evolve to a proxy, neo-Cold War scenario. If the situation in the regions
worsens, some countries would be funded and supported by the U.S., while others, including several
members of Latin America’s “New Left”, would become the major beneficiaries of Moscow. An analogy of such practice is
the Georgia – Russia crisis that surfaced in August of 2008. During this brief war, the U.S. sent military aid to Georgia[24] on warships to
territory Russia considers its “backyard” (i.e. the Caucasus and the Black Sea), infuriating Moscow. A month after the conflict erupted,
ostensibly in retaliation, Russia
sent two Tu-160 bombers to conduct military exercises with Washington’s least
conducted war games with
Caracas, in which a small Russian fleet was sent to the Caribbean to participate in joint naval
maneuvers with the Venezuelan navy.[26] This was a powerful symbolic act: as it was the first time that Russian
warships had visited the Caribbean since the Cuban Missile Crisis.¶ In the wake of the post-Georgia conflict, such
joint military maneuvers between Russia and Venezuela were revitalized, and helped to build up the
tensions between Washington and Moscow, sending strong signals of a Cold War revival. Furthermore, in the aftermath of
favorite nation in Latin America: Venezuela[25]. More importantly, in November of 2008 Moscow
the declarations of independence by the breakaway regions of Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Venezuela[27] and Nicaragua[28] were
alone among Latin American countries in recognizing the independence of the new republics.¶ Conclusion¶ Without a doubt, Russia’s
alliances in Latin America are part of a greater geopolitical game. Yet, it should not be forgotten why there is so much
resentment within the region against the U.S. Perhaps, the displeasure is the consequence of decades of U.S. intervention in Latin American
affairs in order to maintain strategic interests. Russia
has been accused by numerous editorial writers of possessing too
much leverage over Latin American; it is understandable, if not forgivable, that Washington perceives RussianLatin American relations as incursions into the U.S.’ vicinity of interest, no matter how archaic such thinking may
be. Inarguably, Russia has “bought” the interest of Latin American governments that are not totally committed to Washington’s policies; it has
furnished the region with investments in energy infrastructure, strengthened military capabilities, and provided means to combat drug
trafficking.¶
Russian hegemony is increasing in Latin America – CELAC was directly created as a
counter to the US’ OAS
Nechepurenko 13
(Ivan, 5/30/13, The Moscow Times, “Russia Seeks to Restore Influence in Latin
America,” http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-seeks-to-restoreinfluence-in-latin-america/480827.html, accessed 6/26/13, IC)
Russia has demonstrated its increasing leverage in Latin America with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
meeting representatives of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States in Moscow on Wednesday.¶ The
foreign ministers of Cuba, Costa Rica and Haiti and the deputy foreign minister of Chile discussed
trade, political dialogue and a visa-free regime with Lavrov, with everyone in agreement that Russia's
relations with the region are ripe enough to establish "a permanent mechanism for political dialogue
and cooperation in a Russia-CELAC format," a statement from Russia's Foreign Ministry said. ¶ CELAC was founded in
2010 as a counterweight to the U.S.-led Organization of American States. It consists of 33 states representing
almost 600 million people and producing $7 trillion in annual GDP.¶ "This is a serious attempt by Latin American states to
counter U.S. economic and political influence in the region," said Mikhail Belyat, an independent Latin American expert and
lecturer at the Russian State University for the Humanities.¶ In the aftermath of the Cuban Revolution, the Soviet Union rapidly increased its
economic and military influence in Latin America only to see that influence subside with the collapse of the Soviet Union.¶ Apart from Latin
America, Russia has recently reinvigorated its efforts to project its influence around the world, especially in other areas where its influence has
declined.¶ To that end, Russia has been actively promoting the concept of a multi-polar world, playing an active role in such organizations as
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
100
the BRICS and the Eurasian Economic Space, which is planned to be transformed into a full-fledged Eurasian Union in 2015.¶ "Our friends have
expressed their desire to make permanent contacts between the CELAC and BRICS. Particularly on the sidelines of various meetings. We believe
this is a very attractive suggestion and we will definitely discuss it with other states that are members of this association," Lavrov said at the
news conference that followed negotiations.¶ BRICS consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, representing large, fast-growing
economies with an increasing influence on global affairs.¶ Just like BRICS, CELAC
countries have enjoyed strong economic
growth of 4.5 percent on average over the last three years, which in turn drives these states to look to distant markets.¶
"Like Russia, these countries want to diversify their economies and export markets so that their goals
complement each other," Belyat said.¶ Trade between Russia and Latin America reached $16 billion in
2012 alone.¶ In order to complement the exchange of goods with the exchange of people, the sides have agreed to put their
efforts into establishing a visa-free regime between CELAC countries and Russia.¶ Although Russians already enjoy
visa-free travel to most countries of Latin America, including Brazil, Argentina and Chile, Costa Rica and Panama still require Russian citizens to
apply for entry clearance in advance.¶ Russia has been negotiating visa-free entry for its citizens for some time now, with the most well-known
process taking place with the EU.¶ Russia has noted that the EU already grants visa-free access to such countries as Brazil, Mexico and
Venezuela — countries which enjoy a similar level of economic prosperity as Russia.¶ As the bureaucratic process in the EU drags out visa-free
negotiations, Moscow
is looking to other regions to expand its influence.¶ "We used to have hectares full of Lada cars
predict Russia will become more
prominent in Latin America, and we will see more Latin American goods in our stores."¶
along the Panama Canal, while our tractors were plowing Mexican lands," Belyat said. "So I
Russia’s foreign policy is based on increasing influence to confront US hegemony even Putin says that Latin America is a significant part
Blank, Research Professor of National Security Affairs Strategic Studies Institute, U.S.
Army War College, 10
(Stephen J., 4/13/10, University of Miami Center for Hemispheric Policy, “Russia and
Latin America: Motives and Consequences,” p. 3-6,
https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Blank_miamirussia_04-1310.pdf, accessed 6/26/13, IC)
For these reasons, we cannot ignore Russia’s activities in Latin America. Foreign Minister Sergei ¶ Lavrov has said that Latin
America and
Russia are natural partners, not because of Latin ¶ America’s economic growth but because of the
congruence between Latin governments’ foreign ¶ policies and Russia’s attempt to bring them into its
concept of a multipolar world.¶ Russia’s Policies and Objectives in Latin America¶ 15 Similarly ¶ Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
has also said that “Latin America is becoming a noticeable link in ¶ the chain of the multipolar world
that is forming — we will pay more and more attention to this ¶ vector of our economic and foreign
policy.”16¶ So while neither Russia nor Venezuela will challenge the U.S. militarily, (e.g., by Russian bases in Cuba), their individual and
collective ¶ goals entail the deliberate and substantial worsening of East-West relations and of Latin ¶ America’s pre-existing acute
problems.17¶ These statements show that while particular
emphasis is given to Venezuela and Cuba, ¶ Moscow’s
purposes in engaging Latin America economically and diplomatically have developed ¶ from the original
concept stated by Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov in 1997 when he visited ¶ Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Costa Rica. Primakov justified
the trip by saying that “Russia ¶ was
and still is a great power. As a great power or one of the main players in
the international ¶ arena, Russia, naturally, should have multilateral ties with all continents, with all
regions of the ¶ world.”18 Russian interest in recovering or gaining positions in Latin America that it either had ¶ lost or
thought that it could gain, or regain in a changed world order at U.S. expense, preceded ¶ the more recent notion that it will show the
United States that if it intervenes in the former Soviet ¶ Union, Moscow can reciprocate in Latin America.
That latter idea and concept only became ¶ possible due to Russia’s recovery in 2000-08 and the corresponding and coinciding decline of ¶ U.S.
power and prestige due to the Bush Administration’s disastrous policies such as the ¶ invasion of Iraq, the treatment of prisoners at
Guantanamo, the failure to deal effectively with ¶ either Iranian or Korean proliferation, and last, but certainly not least the neglect of sound ¶
economic policy that has been a major cause of the current global economic crisis.19¶ •Therefore any initiative for the employment of joint
forces (with the United States or ¶ other states) must comply with the United Nations. Integration initiatives must similarly ¶ be based on
shared multilateral objectives, e.g., opposition to unilateral operations ¶ involving the use of force.¶ Meanwhile,¶ the current economic crisis,
plus the Obama administration’s new policies, should lead to less ¶ public emphasis on that particular rationale for Russian policy in Latin
America. ¶ Instead, and this is implicit in Lavrov’s statement above and in Medvedev’s rhetoric during his ¶ trip to Latin America, we may see
greater Russian efforts to identify its foreign policy with Latin ¶ American security elites’ clear preference for the following principles¶ •Latin
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
101
America should be impervious to outside efforts to violently challenge security ¶ and respect the principles of international law as established in
the charters of the ¶ Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations (UN).¶ 20¶ While these points accord with Russian rhetoric,
Latin American elites overwhelmingly prefer cooperation with the United States based on its acceptance and appreciation of their needs
interests and views. They refuse to be pawns once again in a new version of the Cold War.21¶ Indeed, Brazilian President Inacio “Lula” da Silva
openly expressed his hope that President ¶ Obama implements a ‘preferential’ relationship with Latin America.22¶ Unfortunately, Russian
and Venezuelan foreign policies, albeit for different reasons, aim to ¶ embroil the continent in a
contest with the United States. Russia still covets a global, or even ¶ superpower, status equal to that of the United
States and therefore wants to join every ¶ international club that exists, whether or not it has any real
interests in the area.23 Thus Russia ¶ expressed to Argentina its interest in becoming an observer at the
South American Defense ¶ Council that is part of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). Russia also
wants to ¶ participate as an observer in the Latin American Association of Training Centers for Peace ¶
Operations (Alcopaz).24 This craving for status lies at the heart of Russian foreign policy.25¶ Consequently Russian policy in Latin
America is ultimately an American policy. It aims to ¶ instrumentalize Latin America as a series of countries or
even a weak, but still discernible,¶ political bloc to support Russian positions against U.S. policy and dominance
in world affairs. ¶ Therefore Russia argues that Latin American states that wish to challenge America need
to rely ¶ on Moscow. Thus President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua pledged to Russia Nicaragua’s ¶ opposition to
a “unipolar” world and welcomed Russian presence in Latin America as a sign of ¶ opposition to that
unipolarity by saying “extreme conditions are being created in Latin America ¶ and all the governments are welcoming Russia’s presence.”26
Chávez’s recognition of South ¶ Ossetia and Abkhazia had similar objectives in mind.27¶ Russia welcomes the developing of democratization
and increased attention to the task of ¶ national development that we see in Latin America. We welcome Latin America’s role ¶ in the efforts to
democratize international relations in the context of the objectively growing multipolarity in the world. We believe that these processes are in
the interests of ¶ the whole [of] mankind. Russia is interested in the closest cooperation with our Latin ¶ American partners in reply to the
reciprocal interest they are showing.¶ Moscow’s policy is part of its larger effort to realize this so-called multipolar world. Thus in ¶ November
2008 Lavrov stated:¶ 28¶ But other Latin American countries oppose being dragged into the Russo-American rivalry and ¶ becoming a
battleground like the former Soviet Union. Enhanced trade and relations with Russia ¶ are one thing; becoming objects of a new quasi-Cold War
struggle is another thing entirely. ¶ Countries
other than Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Bolivia clearly value not
opportunity to enter into the Russian market or buy arms, but also to gain a voice in their
campaign to induce the United States to return to a policy of more multilateralism and concern ¶ for their security
interests.29 But they oppose returning Latin America to being a front in a Cold ¶ War replay, especially as Russia clearly tries to utilize leftist
just the
anti-American states like Venezuela ¶ for its own purposes.30 Instead, most states prefer that Latin America be “impervious” to global ¶
threats.31¶ Multipolarity remains a policy aiming to enhance Russian standing as a global great power ¶ through these diplomatic endeavors to
counter the United States in a series of regions of interest ¶ to Russia.32 Moscow is still pushing it in Latin America and now it appears that
support for this ¶ concept, and in particular support for Rusian policy in the Caucasus (i.e., recognition of the ¶
independence of South, Ossetia and Abkhazia), is increasingly tied to Russian support of Latin ¶
American states requests for loans and/or energy assistance and arms sales.33 Even if, as Lavrov, ¶
Even Russian officials agree - Cuba is key to Russian foreign policy
Blank, Research Professor of National Security Affairs Strategic Studies Institute, U.S.
Army War College, 10
(Stephen J., 4/13/10, University of Miami Center for Hemispheric Policy, “Russia and
Latin America: Motives and Consequences,” p. 3-6,
https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Blank_miamirussia_04-1310.pdf, accessed 6/26/13, IC)
The dominance of geopolitics
emerges quite strongly in Russian foreign policy towards its main ¶ partners in
Latin America, Venezuela and Cuba. Russia’s interests are fundamentally ¶ geostrategic, not economic, and
no Latin economy save perhaps Brazil can offer Russia much ¶ tangible benefit. Therefore, geopolitical and strategic aims outweigh economic
interaction with ¶ these states. For example, the BBC reported that Patrushev told Ecuador’s government that ¶ Russia wanted to collaborate
with its intelligence agency, “to expand Moscow’s influence in ¶ Latin America.”¶ 59 Moscow also signed an agreement to sell Ecuador
weapons.60 Most probably ¶ Russia wants to link Ecuador and Venezuela with Russian weapons and intelligence support ¶ against Colombia.
Since they are both antagonistic to Colombia, they can then support the ¶ Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), threaten a U.S. ally
and seek to pin ¶ Washington down in another dirty war.61 Chávez’s open support of the FARC with Russian ¶ weapons strongly suggests that
Moscow knows all about his efforts and approves of them. The ¶ case of Viktor Bout, the notorious arms dealer who enjoys protection from
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
102
Russia’s government,¶ reinforces this analysis. In 2008 Bout was arrested in Thailand for offering to deliver weapons to ¶ the FARC as part of a
sting organized by the United States. It may not be coincidental that ¶ Bout’s offers coincide with Russian support for Chávez’s latest clash with
Colombia.62 Once ¶ Bout was arrested and obliged to undergo an extradition hearing, Moscow brought immense ¶ pressure to bear upon
Bangkok so that he would not be extradited to the United States and forced ¶ to name names, dates, places and people.¶ 63¶ Undoubtedly,
Moscow also fully recognizes Chávez’s conversion of Venezuela into a critical ¶ transshipment center for narcotics from both Latin America and
West Africa, his support for ¶ insurgencies and terrorists throughout Latin America and his expansionist and revolutionary ¶ dreams about
Colombia, and seeks to exploit those factors for its own anti-American purposes.¶ Therefore one must treat reports of actual or forthcoming
Russian agreements with Nicaragua ¶ and Venezuela on counter-drug cooperation with great wariness, as they could be smokescreens ¶ for
Moscow’s conscious support for drug running into America, Europe and Latin America.65¶ Indeed, reports from 2003 point to Russian criminal
penetration of Mexico’s narcotics gangs.66¶ More recently, in early 2009, a Russian and a Cuban citizen were both arrested for drug ¶
smuggling in Yucatán.67¶ Simultaneously, Russia openly wants to increase cooperation among the BRIC members’ ¶ intelligence services and
Latin America in general. Clearly Moscow wants to establish ¶ permanent roots in Latin America and use those contacts as bases for political
influence to ¶ support those states and potential insurgent movements against the United States. 68¶ Chilean, Colombian and especially
Brazilian reports all raise the alarm about the $5.4 billion in ¶ Russian arms sales to Venezuela. These reports raise the specter of Venezuela
“detonating” a ¶ continental arms race, acquiring the largest Latin American fleet due to its purchase of ¶ submarines, the comprehensive
arming of Venezuela’s army, fleet and air forces with huge arms ¶ purchases, and the acquisition of hundreds of thousands of Kalashnikovs, and
an ammunition ¶ factory. These reports also point out that since 2003, if not earlier, these automatic rifles and ¶ ammunition have migrated
from Venezuela to the FARC. This causes great fear that Russian ¶ arms will underwrite armed insurgencies and drug running (submarines being
excellently ¶ equipped for that purpose, as well as to defend Venezuela’s coastline from nonexistent threats). ¶ These are ¶ only some
of
the reasons why Moscow’s arms sales to Venezuela, and projected sales to Cuba,¶ are perhaps the
only truly dangerous aspects of its policies in Latin America. These sales aim to ¶ give Chávez much of what he needs to
foment his Bolivarian Revolution throughout Latin ¶ America, since Chávez is running or selling weapons to insurgents and left-wing regimes all
over ¶ the region, and second, because these weapons make no sense unless he is planning an arms race ¶ in Latin America. ¶ 69¶ The sheer
scale of ongoing Russian arms sales to Venezuela since 2004 justifies these alarms, as ¶ they make no strategic sense given the absence of any
U.S. or other military threat. Even Chávez ¶ knows this, for he claims that the air defense missiles he ordered are meant to protect oil¶
derricks!70 Therefore there are purposes beyond the legitimate defense of Venezuela for these¶ weapons. Moscow has sold Venezuela $5.4
billion in weapons since 2004. Those systems ¶ include 24 Su-30 fighters, 100,000 Kalashnikov AK-47 rifles, Ak-103 assault rifles, BMP-3 ¶
infantry fighting vehicles. Venezuela also bought 53 Mi-17V-s and Mi-35M helicopters. In ¶ addition, Russia has helped develop factories in
Venezuela that can make parts for the rifles, ¶ their ammunition and the fighters, with an announced goal of producing 50,000 rifles a year. ¶
Venezuela plans to buy 12 Il-76 and Il-78 tankers and cargo aircraft, or possibly 96-300 military ¶ transport planes, Tor-M1 anti-air missiles, a
fifth generation anti-air system equally effective ¶ against planes, helicopters, UAVs, cruise missiles and high precision missiles, and Igla-S ¶
portable SAM systems. In September 2009, Moscow advanced Caracas a $2 billion credit to buy ¶ more arms: 92 T-72 main battle tanks, Smerch
rocket artillery systems, and the Antey 2500 antiballistic missile system.71 Other Russian defense sources said that the tank deal could be ¶
expanded to include three diesel-powered submarines “Kilo” class, combat helicopters Mi-28 ¶ and armored infantry vehicles BMP-3.72
Venezuela also seeks Mi-28n Hunter high-attack ¶ helicopters and is discussing the possible purchase of submarines.73 There were also earlier ¶
discussions about selling project 636 submarines (among the quietest subs in the world) to ¶ Venezuela during 2011-13, along with torpedo and
missile ordnance for Venzuela’s navy. The ¶ $2.2 billion loan in 2009 will go for 92 T-70 and T-72 tanks, BMP-3 Infantry Fighting Vehicles, ¶
Smerch anti-tank missiles, multiple rocket launchers, S-300, Buk M-2 and Pechora anti-aircraft ¶ missiles, all systems usable against Colombia. In
return, Russia got access to join Venezuela’s ¶ national oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), in exploring oil fields in the ¶ Orinoco
River basin.74¶ The signed agreements make it clear that each of the three Russian companies has staked its own ¶ bloc in the Orinoco oil belt.
Thus, LUKOIL has received permission to explore the Junin-3 ¶ block. In effect, it has extended its three-year-long contract with PDSVA on the
block's¶ evaluation and certification. The new two-year agreement provides for the bloc's joint ¶ exploration and development. Once
accomplished, the two companies plan to establish a joint ¶ venture to develop the deposit. This will require billions of dollars in investment.
The oil from ¶ this project could then be sent to an oil refinery in Italy. LUKOIL has just bought 49.9% of its ¶ shares. TNK-BP and PDSVA signed
an agreement on the joint study of the Ayacucho-2 block in ¶ the wake of a framework memo signed last October. As with the LUKOIL
agreement, it provides ¶ for a second phase -the sale of the produced oil abroad.75¶ Venezuela’s arms purchases make no sense unless they
are intended for purposes of helping the ¶ FARC and other similar groups, fighting Colombia, projecting power throughout Latin America, ¶ drug
running with subs that are protected against air attacks, or providing a temporary base for ¶ Russian naval and air forces where they can be
sheltered from attacks but threaten North or ¶ South America.76 Since Putin has said that permanent bases in Cuba and Venzuela are ¶
unnecessary, this leaves the door open to temporary bases, including submarine bases as ¶ needed.77 Recently Bolivia, too, has offered its
territory as a base in return for arms sales and ¶ economic help on energy and other projects.78 Much of what Russia sells to Venezuela is ¶
compatible with that idea, as is Putin’s
call for restoring Russia’s position in Cuba and ongoing ¶ talks between
Russian and Cuban military officials (e.g., Sechin’s trips in 2008).¶ 79¶ The following facts are also particularly
noteworthy. Chávez is not only arming the FARC; he is ¶ also training other Latin American states’ military forces (e.g., Bolivian forces).¶ 80
Venezuela ¶ aided Iranian missile sales to Syria, Chávez told Iranian leaders about his desire to introduce ¶ “nuclear elements into Venezuela,”
(i.e., nuclear weapons) and Russia supports the allegedly ¶ peaceful Venezuelan development of nuclear energy and explorations for finding
uranium and an ¶ alternative nuclear fuel, thorium.81 Iran is now actively helping Venezuela explore for uranium.82¶ 75 “Political Implications
of Russian-Venezuelan Oil Agreements,” RIA Novosti, ¶ These developments suggest the possiblity of Venezuela functioning as a kind of swing
man or ¶ pivot for a Russo-Venezuelan-Iranian alliance against the United States. Certainly elements in¶ the Iranian press and government
believe that Tehran should further intensify its already ¶ extensive efforts here to create the possibility of a “second front” in political or even in
military ¶ terms against the United States. Hizbollah already raises money and runs drugs in Latin America ¶ and many have noted the growing
network of ties between Iran and Latin American insurgents ¶ and terrorists facilitated by Chávez.83¶ Furthermore, Chávez has sought to
engage Moscow not just in a formal alliance, which it has so ¶ far resisted, but also in participation in the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin
America and the ¶ Caribean (ALBA). Medvedev has indicated Russia’s willingness to discuss participation in this ¶ organization, since it accords
103
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
with Russia’s ideas about a multipolar world and international ¶ division of labor.84 Neither has Moscow forgotten about its military
Russia has pledged to continue military-technological cooperation (arms sales) with
Cuba.85¶ Russian officials continue to say Cuba holds a key role in Russian foreign policy and that Russia ¶
considers it a permanent partner in Latin America.86¶ Neither has Moscow neglected its attempts to gain lasting positions
of economic influence and ¶ ties of mutual, or at least professed mutual advantage, in economics. Many of these discussions ¶ and
agreements to date revolve around either exploring for oil and/or gas in and around Cuba ¶ and
Venezuela, or constructing Chavez’s idea of a Pan-American pipeline from Venezuela to ¶ Argentina. Russia and Venezuela are also
partnership with Cuba. ¶
discussing participation in a gas cartel, another ¶ cherished Russian project. Russia will also mine bauxite and produce aluminum in Venezuela. ¶
Both these states are also creating or discussing the creation of a binational bank and Venezuela ¶ and Cuba
are also discussing
space projects with Russia.87¶
Russia is expanding military ties with Cuba
Xinhua News 13
(4/20/13, Global Times, “Russia to pursue further military cooperation with Cuba,”
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/776242.shtml#.UctZ-Pmkpkg, accessed 6/26/13,
IC)
Russia has good military cooperation with Cuba and will continue expanding their military ties, Cuban
official Prensa Latina news agency quoted a Russian general as saying here Friday. The two countries
have collaborated in various military fields such as cadre training, operational combat training and
technical cooperation, said Russia's Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov, who arrived in Havana on
Thursday for a four-day working visit. He was welcomed by his Cuban counterpart General Alvaro Lopez
Miera on Friday and laid a wreath to Cuban pro-independence hero Antonio Maceo at the Cacahual
Mausoleum outside Havana. His agenda in Cuba covers touring important tank units and other military
units, schools and institutions. Russia and Cuba were close economic and political allies during the Cold
War. But their relations diminished after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 till 2008, when
Cuban leader Raul Castro began a very active policy of restoring the old links with Moscow, including
mutual visits by the two countries' presidents.
104
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
UQ – China
China is establishing a deep economic relationship with Cuba- one that is filling the
niche U.S. companies sought to occupy
Hearn, Research Fellow at the School of Social and Political Sciences, the University of
Sydney, June ‘09
(Adrian H., Florida International University, June 2009, “Cuba and China: Lessons and
Opportunities for the United States”, http://cri.fiu.edu/research/commissionedreports/cuba-china-hearn.pdf, PD)
While some analysts identify state leadership in developing countries as an integral and valuable
component of “alliance capitalism” (Dunning 1997), critics argue that state-led industrial models, such
as those advocated by Cuba and China, threaten human rights and democratic governance (CLATF 2006,
Eisenman 2006, Lam 2004, Santoli et al. 2004). In his testimony before the House Committee on
International Relations in April 2005, U.S. Congressman Dan Burton warned that, “Beijing’s influence
could easily unravel the region’s hard-won, U.S.-backed reforms to fight against corruption, human
rights abuses, increase government transparency and combat intellectual property violations” (Burton
2005:7). Similarly, Joshua Kurlantzick argues that poor transparency has enabled China to develop
partnerships with countries that are hostile to the United States while maintaining privacy from
international rights and monitoring agencies (2008:199). Given the political climate in Washington, an
opportunity exists for the United States to engage with both sides of this debate, and to assert a
regional policy that enables more genuine forms of information sharing, responds to local needs, and
sustains geopolitical balance. As the Congressional Research Service has advised, the United States
should “work harder to ensure that U.S. democratization and human rights values are not seen by other
countries as encumbrances and prohibitions placed in the way of, but instead as things that ultimately
will improve, their economic progress” (CRS 2008:15). Given the political climate in Havana, Cuba is a
logical starting point for advancing this policy. Its successful implementation, however, will require a
more detailed awareness of the Cuban government’s approach to cooperation with foreign enterprises.
Below I discuss two prominent aspects of bilateral engagement that have underpinned China’s industrial
relations with Cuba. Chinese Industry in Cuba: Incremental Growth and Coordinated Development The
products on display at the annual Havana trade fair demonstrate that U.S. companies seeking to
operate in Cuba will enter a market already occupied by foreign competitors. For almost a decade, the
fair’s white goods pavilion has been dominated by Haier, Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese electronics
firms, whose promotional literature proudly links them to the Chinese government, for instance: China
Putian Corporation was founded in 1980. It is an extra-large sized state-owned enterprise directly under
the management of [the] Chinese central government...China Putian Corporation will regard Cuba as a
platform so as to develop is business in Latin America. Huawei is developing broadband internet
services to Cuban government specifications, and Chinese manufacturers have integrated themselves
neatly into Cuba’s “energy revolution” campaign, which seeks to reduce electricity consumption
through the mass distribution of energy-efficient refrigerators, light bulbs, and domestic appliances.
They have also participated in long-term technology transfer schemes that aim to progress from initial
sales of Chinese products to their eventual manufacture in Cuba. An early example of this emerged two
years into the Special Period, when China shipped 500,000 bicycles to Cuba. To meet continuing
demand, Mao Xianglin, a former envoy of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party,
visited Cuba in 1997 to study the domestic economy and set up a bicycle factory with Chinese capital
and technical expertise. The success of the initiative led to a similar export-to-production scheme for
electric fans. Mao described this as an “incremental” strategy that Chinese businesses have since
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
105
employed across a range of sectors in Cuba and Latin America: I would hesitate to say that our Cuban
manufacturing operations are entirely commercial, because what we’re doing is broader than that.
We’re trying to help Cuba to incrementally upgrade its technical ability. If our products prove popular
and useful then we assist by setting up factories…It is interesting that China learned from the United
States how to manage its economy, and now Latin America looks to China as a teacher of socialism.
Today we are a global village, but for the village to be harmonious there has to be mutual
understanding and respect. That is why we are helping Cuba to reach its goals…Using Chinese
expertise Cuba could come to produce electronic goods for sale to Latin America (interview, 14
December 2007). Chinese technical and financial assistance to Cuba demonstrate the sincerity of these
words. During a 2001 visit to Cuba, Chinese President Jiang Zemin offered an interest-free credit line of
$6.5 million, a loan of $200 million to modernize local telecommunications with Chinese products, and a
$150 million credit to buy Chinese televisions (Erikson and Minson 2006:14). Following the successful
sale of Chinese washing machines, televisions, air conditioners, and refrigerators to Cuba, Hu Jintao
signed sixteen accords in 2004 pledging Chinese support for the domestic manufacture of these and
other goods, a promise that has materialized in a three-story production facility next to Havana’s Lenin
Park. Visiting again in November 2008, Hu offered extensions on the repayment of previous loans, a
donation of $8 million for hurricane relief, and a credit of $70 million for health infrastructure. A Chinese
businessman accompanying the delegation noted that 37 new investment projects offered by Hu will
require Chinese technicians, investors, and their families to take up residence in Cuba, and will attract
additional Chinese professionals to the country over time (interview, 21 November 2008). In return for
Chinese technology transfer, Raúl Castro has provided a domestic market for Chinese exports and, as
Cheng Yinghong notes, has attempted to implement certain aspects of a revised “Chinese model” of
local economic reform (Cheng 2009:1). Beyond the distribution of Chinese televisions and refrigerators
through state channels, Raúl’s April 2008 lifting of restrictions on the domestic sale of VCRs, mobile
phones, computers, and other electronic items was an important building block of China-Cuba
commercial relations. This reform also permits closer regulation of trade in products that were already
widely in circulation through informal channels, reflecting William Ratliff’s (2004:35) observation that
Chinese-inspired economic reforms in Cuba may require more rigorous anti-corruption measures. The
interests of Chinese electronics firms in Cuba, alongside those of Orascom from Egypt, and VimpelCom
and Rostelecom from Russia, make electrodomestics a likely area of manufacturing expansion. China’s
incremental approach to market expansion in Cuba is one component of a broader strategy of
development that has proven successful across East Asia (Hira 2007:87-96). A related component of
this strategy that has generated opportunities for Chinese firms in Cuba is the linkage of distinct
industrial sectors into an integrated system, a process that analysts argue has given the Chinese
government an unusual degree of control over production chains in a number of countries (Ellis
2005:5, Kurlantzick 2008:200). As Kurlantzick puts it, The Chinese government wants to control the
entire process, from taking commodities out of the ground to shipping them back to China, because it
does not trust world markets to ensure continuous supplies of key resources. It is purchasing stakes in
important oil and gas firms abroad, constructing the infrastructure necessary to get those 5 industries’
resources to port, and building close relations with refiners and shippers (2008:200).
China is expanding military ties with Cuba
Xinhua News 12
(9/15/12, People’s Daily Online, “China, Cuba to further military cooperation,”
http://english.people.com.cn/90786/7949892.html, accessed 6/26/13, IC)
106
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
BEIJING, Sept. 14 (Xinhua) -- China and Cuba agreed to further deepen military cooperation as a Cuban
senior general visited Beijing on Friday. Joaquin Quintas, Vice Minister of Cuba's Revolutionary Armed
Forces (FAR), said that the Cuban side is willing to enhance exchanges with the Chinese military and
strengthen bilateral cooperation in personnel training and other areas. In Friday's talks with Quintas,
Ma Xiaotian, deputy chief of general staff of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), said that China-Cuba
relations have withstood the test of time and international vicissitudes since the two countries
established diplomatic relations in 1960, adding that the willingness of their armed forces to
strengthen bilateral ties is unwavering. The PLA attaches great importance to developing relations with
the FAR, according to Ma. Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission Guo Boxiong and Defense
Minister Liang Guanglie also met with Quintas. Developing bilateral military relations is in accordance
with the fundamental interests of the two countries and peoples, Guo said, stressing that China is
ready to work with Cuba to strengthen friendship and enhance cooperation. Liang, also China's State
Councilor, said the Chinese government has always attached great importance to developing a
friendship with Cuba, noting that military cooperation is conducive to the two countries' national
security and development interests. The Cuban side is very pleased to see China's progress and
achievements, Quintas said, vowing that Cuba will always adhere to the one-China policy and support
China to safeguard national unity and territorial integrity.
China is turning towards Latin America and it’s up to the US to find a new form of
engagement—proves why plan is key
Mallén, writer on Latin America for International Business Times, 13
(Patricia Rey, 5/30/13, International Business Times, “Latin Lovers: China And U.S.
Both Vying To Increase Influence And Trade In Latin America, Caribbean,”
http://www.ibtimes.com/latin-lovers-china-us-both-vying-increase-influence-tradelatin-america-caribbean-1284839, accessed 6/26/13, IC)
The battle is on. The world's two largest economic superpowers, China
and the United States, are making moves on Latin
America, hoping to gain more geopolitical influence in a booming region.¶ U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden arrived in Rio
de Janeiro on Wednesday, while Chinese President Xi Jinping just landed in the Caribbean island nation of Trinidad and Tobago and is following
closely in Biden’s steps.¶ Biden’s visit to Brazil marks the end of a six-day swing through the region, which included stops in Colombia and
Trinidad and Tobago. Xi’s trip to Trinidad, Costa Rica and Mexico is the first since the formal transition of power ended in China in March. These
parallel journeys from the
world’s top powers to Latin America emphasize how the region’s vast natural
resources and steady economic growth are making it an increasingly attractive trading partner .¶ China's
designs on Latin America have long been apparent, with imports to the Asian giant surging from $3.9 billion in 2000 to $86 billion in 2011, as
calculated by the Inter-American Development Bank. Now, China seeks to start buying massive amounts of soy beans, copper and iron ore from
Latin nations, reports the South China Morning Post.¶ The U.S., on the other hand, which has had deep involvement in many Latin American
nations for the past two centuries, has nonetheless been less than consistent in its recent trade policies, said Boston University economist Kevin
Gallagher, who has written about China's incursions in the region. “The
onus is on the U.S. to come up with a more
flexible, attractive offer, but that’s not so easy because it doesn’t have the deep pockets like it used
to,” he told Bloomberg.¶ During his visit to Colombia, Biden signed a two-year free trade agreement between the
countries, calling it “just the beginning.” The VP said, at the end of a particularly tense discussion about trade in Trinidad on Tuesday,
that the U.S. is deeply invested in the region, and wants to expand that investment with more
agreements. “Our goal is not simply growth, but growth that reaches everyone,” he added.¶ In Rio de Janeiro, Biden met with President
Dilma Rousseff and invited her to a meeting in Washington to finalize a strategic accord. Biden mentioned being particularly interested in oil
and energy companies like state-owned Petroleo Brasilero, better known as Petrobras (NYSE: PBR), reported Brazilian newspaper O Globo.¶
Biden mentioned that trade with Brazil could be increased by 400 percent from the current $100 billion, if trade between the two largest
Western Hemisphere nations included biofuels and aviation.¶ Meanwhile, China’s
blossoming relationships with the region
evince a shift in its strategy; indeed, in the past Beijing deferred to U.S. economic interests in Latin
107
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
America, due to geographic proximity, even referring to the region as “Washington’s backyard.” But
now, in a globalized world, China seems to view the entire planet as its own "backyard." ¶ “You don’t hear that
anymore from Xi’s team,” said Evan Ellis, professor at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. In fact China has recently
ousted the U.S. to become the top trade partner for Brazil and Chile, reported Bloomberg News.¶ Moreover,
China is seeking to advance its footprints in the region in gradual steps -- for example, Beijing plans to lend Costa Rica
$400 million to help expand a highway,reported local newspaper La Nación.¶ “If the Chinese decide to unroll one of their little packages in
Trinidad [the biggest energy supplier in the region], they will win the entire Caribbean over,” said Gallagher.¶ Still, the
U.S. and China
both deny they are competing in the vast region. Ultimately, the decision lies with Latin American leaders, says Gallagher.
“If I was [a Latin American leader], I’d be very happy because I now have more chips to play with,” he added.
Chinese influence in Cuba is up now- they’re cooperating in scientific and agricultural
areas
Embassy of the Republic of Cuba, 6/18/13
(6/18/13, Press release from the Cuban government, “China and Cuba to advance
cooperation in agriculture,” Online: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1306/S00449/china-andcuba-to-advance-cooperation-in-agriculture.htm FG)
China and Cuba expressed their interest in keeping advancing bilateral cooperation in agriculture,
innovation and scientific exchange, official sources reported on Saturday. The issue was addressed by
Cuban Agriculture minister Gustavo Rodriguez during a meeting in Beijing with his Chinese
counterpart Han Changfu. The Chinese government official recalled a recent visit to Cuba in which he
met with the historic leaders of the Cuban Revolution and he stressed the importance of implementing
a cooperation program signed by the two Agriculture ministries during the visit to China by President
Raul Castro last year. The two parties agreed that although some actions have been taken on the basis
of the accord, there is mutual interest in the advancement of that program. Minister Han Changfu also
expressed his willingness to further increase scientific and technical exchange and innovation in the
industrial and agriculture sectors. The two agriculture ministers exchanged views on the measures
being implemented by the Cuban government in the sector. The Cuban official briefed his host about
the transformations that are underway in the area as part of the update of the island’s economic sector.
China and Cuba are cooperating now, Chinese influence is only increasing
Frank, journalist at the Financial Times, 2006
(Mark, 3/7/2006, “Trade with China Prime’s Cuba’s Engine for Trade,” Online:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/de4f405c-ae0a-11da-8ffb-0000779e2340.html#axzz2XjxLfqSU FG)
Cuba is turning to Chinese companies rather than western ones to modernize its crippled
transportation system at a cost of more than $1 billion, continuing a trend of favoring the fellow
Communist country that has made Beijing Cuba’s second trading partner after Venezuela. Buses plying
Cuba’s highways increasingly come from the Yutong Bus Company and railway locomotives from the
7th of February works on Beijing’s outskirts. Cuba’s ports are being revamped with Chinese
equipment, in part, to handle millions of Chinese domestic appliances that began arriving last year. Oil
rigs along Cuba’s northwest heavy oil belt boast Chinese flags, and this is only the beginning, says
Fidel Castro, Cuban president. Enabled by friendly ties with a government that is ready to resist US
pressure, trade cover insuring low-cost credit and what Mr. Castro says are competitive prices and
fuel efficiency, more buses, locomotives, train cars, trucks and cars are on the way. Cuba’s maximum
leader announced last month he was negotiating personally the purchase of 8,000 buses to be partially
assembled on the island. Mr. Castro estimated that the cost of the new vehicles and old ones fitted with
new motors would exceed $1bn (840m, 575m). In addition, was a deal for 500 Chinese railway cars and
thousands of trucks and cars. China reported 2005 bilateral trade between the two countries up to
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
108
November was $777m, up 62.5 per cent year-on-year. The increase was mainly due to $560m in
Chinese exports to Cuba, up 91 per cent. China has provided Cuba with about $500m in trade cover to
develop communications and electronics. But direct investment between the countries is only about
$100m. Plans jointly to produce nickel and cobalt have yet to materialise. But the budding commercial
relations are still far removed from past ties with the Soviet Union, says Cuban economist Omar
Everleny. “You can’t say our relations are like those with the Soviets. They are strictly commercial,
though with very low interest, and behind that political relations are excellent,” he said. The two
countries were bitter foes during the Sino-Soviet dispute. And even today China and Cuba appear to be
heading in different directions, with the former adopting market economics and the latter clinging to a
command economy that frowns on entrepreneurship and where more than 90 per cent of the economy
is in state hands. Fifteen years after the demise of the Soviet Union plunged Cuba into crisis, passenger
transport numbers stand at 30 per cent of the 1989 level in a country where few own cars. Internal
freight traffic is only now beginning to recover and the truck and heavy machinery stock consists mainly
of old petrol-guzzling vehicles from the Soviet era. Western companies such as Volvo, Mercedes-Benz,
Alstom, Toyota and Fiat, entered the Cuban market through representative and subsidiary companies
in the 1990s with an eye to supplying the growing tourist industry and replacing Soviet equipment if
Havana ever had the cash. Now Mr. Castro does have it, but it is China that is benefiting, although
Havana still imports large volumes of agricultural goods and medical equipment from other countries, as
well as fuel from Venezuela. Cuba’s foreign exchange earnings increased by more than 30 per cent, or
about $2.5bn, last year, according to senior central bank officials and the country had a current account
surplus for the second consecutive year. Most of the new income came from a direct payment from
Venezuela for medical services and indirectly from other Caribbean and Latin America countries under
preferentially financed oil agreements, such as the 13-member PetroCaribe accord. Mr.Castro was
micro- managing the budding trade relationship with the Asian giant thousands of miles away, in part
because it was related to his campaign to save on subsidised energy and fuel through greater efficiency,
government sources said. The first 1,000 buses, plus spare parts, cost $100m, to be paid over four years
at 5 per cent interest, Mr Castro said at a ceremony where they were symbolically received. The deal,
along with others for locomotives, re-equipping ports and other transport projects, was guaranteed by
$400m in Chinese government trade cover, the sources said, overcoming whatever fears Chinese
companies might have about doing business with the Caribbean island. “The government has a firm
position to develop trade co-operation between our countries, the policy, the orientation, has been
determined. What’s left is the work to complete our plans” China’s ambassador to Cuba, Zhao
Rongxian, said at the ceremony.
China has close political ties with Cuba- military and civilian delegations are often
exchanged
Suchlicki, University of Miami history professor, 1999
(Jamie, 7/30/1999, “Those Men in Havana are now Chinese,” article in the Wall Street
Journal, Online: http://www.cubacenter.org/english/those-men-in-havana-are-now-chinese FG)
In February, a top-level Chinese military delegation, led by Defense Minister Chi Haotian, visited Cuba.
It was the first time a Chinese minister of defense had been to the island. But in terms of recent Cuba
China relations, it was not a rare exchange. In fact, after a prolonged period of tension, the two
countries have been warming up to each other in an unprecedented fashion. In 1993, President Jiang
Zemin visited Cuba and Fidel Castro reciprocated by visiting China in 1995. Within the past two years,
Cuba and China have exchanged high-level military and civilian delegations, including visits by Raul
Castro and Cuba’s top generals to China and a trip to Cuba by General Dong Liang Ju, head of the
Chinese Military Commission. China has become increasingly vocal in its opposition to the US’s Cuba
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
109
policy, particularly the embargo, and Cuba condemned last month’s accidental NATO attack on the
Chinese embassy as “an act of aggression, a genocidal action” by the US. As the US debates the value
of the Cuba embargo and as questions continue to arise in Congress about President Clinton’s dealing
with the Chinese, the China-Cuba nexus is of more than passing interest. The impoverished island
obviously can offer little attraction to China in economic terms. The logical conclusion from the military
visits and other clues is that China sees a presence in Cuba of some strategic value, just as the Soviet
Union did years ago when it first teamed up with Fidel Castro to make Cuba a Soviet military base and
intelligence gathering center. A US administration official, who asked not to be identified, says that
“the US is tracking very closely Chinese activities in Cuba. As closely as we can.”
China has spy bases on Cuba- they’re used to get intel about the US
Westerman, Journalist at the Canada Free Press, 2012
(Toby, 1/10/2012, “China, Cuba, and the espionage alliance against the US,” Online:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43802 FG)
China’s intelligence operations are the “core arena” for achieving the superpower status which the
Communist elite in Beijing so passionately desires. Central to its spy activities is the island of Cuba
which is strategically located for the interception of U.S. military and civilian satellite
communications. China’s spy services also cooperates closely with Havana’s own world-class
intelligence services. Inexplicably, the U.S. mass media are ignoring both the existence of the spy base as
well as the Cuban-Chinese alliance which is responsible for it. International News Analysis Today is challenging that
media silence in an exclusive interview with counterintelligence expert Chris Simmons, who explains why China needs Cuba and details the
dangers to the United States in Havana’s espionage partnership with Beijing. Simmons is a retired Counterintelligence Special Agent with 28
years service in the Army, Army Reserve, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, and has testified on the subject of Cuban espionage before
members of U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. Simmons notes that China
has the largest espionage network in the
world with an estimated two million career staff intelligence officers, making Beijing’s spy services
larger than the intelligence operations of all the other nations in the world combined. While
Americans are well aware of China’s financial might, its espionage activities get relatively little
attention. “We are too often distracted by China’s economic gains. For China, however, espionage and economics are tied hand in hand,
and China has the largest appetite for U.S. secrets in the world,” Simmons told International News Analysis Today. The members of China’s
intelligence services, both its officers and those recruited as agents by those officers, tend to be ethnic Chinese, Simmons observed. This ethnic
orientation of China’s espionage services limits the available avenues of access to American security information. China’s spy alliance with
Cuba, however, assists China in overcoming this potential handicap. Cuban penetration of U.S. society augments Chinese efforts and makes an
extremely valuable contribution to Beijing’s overall espionage effort. Cuba’s
human intelligence operations give needed
perspective to information China receives both from its own operatives and from electronic spy bases
operating in Cuba. “That is why China needs Cuba,” Simmons stated. The kind of restricted information
gathered electronically in Cuba covers military, economic, and political affairs, and ranges from how
foreign policy is determined to indications of troop and fleet movements to significant details on
important political figures. The value Beijing places upon the information acquired via Havana can be seen in the October 2011 visit
to the island by Gen Guo Boxiong, Vice Chairman of China’s Central Military Commission. Guo’s presence in Cuba underscored that China has
a special military commitment in addition to a sizable economic investment in Cuba. China is in the
process of replacing Cuba’s aging Soviet-era military equipment, purportedly supplying only “nonlethal” aid. The U.S. prohibits “lethal” assistance to Cuba, and Beijing is risking U.S. sanctions if that prohibition is known
to be violated. The true volume and nature of Chinese military aid to Cuba is, of course, difficult to assess. General Guo’s trip to Cuba follows a
December 2010 military agreement, signed by top ranking PLA General Fu Quanyou, insuring needed military aid to the Castro regime.
Simmons pointed out that China’s electronic intelligence activities on Cuba are particularly
interesting, because China claims they don’t exist. “Officially they are not there,” said Simmons, commenting upon Beijing’s
denials that it has electronic spying capabilities in Cuba. The island of Cuba has been used as an electronic spy base for
decades. The island of Cuba has been used as an electronic spy base for decades, going back to the Soviet construction and
use of the facility at Lourdes. The construction of the base at Lourdes was hard to miss as the concrete buildings and large antennas
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
110
appeared on the Cuban landscape. The Russians pulled out of Lourdes in 2001, much to the relief of many in Washington and the expressed
displeasure of Fidel Castro and his regime. Simmons stated that Moscow scored a propaganda victory in the U.S. media and among the U.S.
political establishment with its abandonment of Lourdes. The reality of the matter, however, was much different than appearances seemed to
indicate, Simmons told International News Analysis Today.
When the Russians left Cuba, they also left a well-trained
Cuban electronic intelligence battalion functioning on the island at the base in Bejucal, as well as an
understanding with Havana to share intelligence information important to Moscow. As a result, Russia
saved millions of dollars which had been spent on the Lourdes base, Moscow avoided Congressional
censure and obtained important economic cooperation from the United States, all at the same time
still receiving important intelligence information on the U.S. from Cuba. “It was a win-win situation
for the Russians,” Simmons stated. 50-100 Chinese intelligence officers are at Bejucal gathering and interpreting information The base at
Bejucal, however, is still operating. While the Cubans technically run it, some 50-100 Chinese intelligence officers are at
Bejucal gathering and interpreting information, according to Simmons. In sharp contrast to Moscow, there is no
political cost to China. “It took us years to find out they [the Communist Chinese] were operating there. We found out
through émigrés, defectors, and travelers to Cuba,” Simmons told INA Today. Unlike the Soviets, China has not constructed
a facility and only with the greatest of difficulty can the Chinese be connected with Cuban electronic spy base activities. In this way, China can
plausibly deny both the use of the base and the transference of information from its Havana embassy to Beijing, Simmons informed INA Today.
The Chinese even took pains to cover the expected increase in radio traffic from the Chinese embassy in Havana to Beijing as the Bejucal base,
and smaller bases across the island which are connected with it, became more active. In anticipation of a greater volume of radio
communication activity between Cuba and China, Beijing gradually increased useless or “dummy” radio traffic with Havana. These “dummy”
messages were later replaced, at least in part, with actual intelligence information generated from the Bejucal facility and its sub-stations as
they became an important Chinese information source. As a result, the U.S. has difficulty determining the “spikes” of real intelligence
information within the broadcasts of “dummy” transmissions coming from the Chinese embassy in Havana, Simmons said. The
eye of the
Chinese dragon is upon the United States. We do not know what information is coming from bases
that supposedly do not exist, but Simmons commented on China’s military and commercial
investment in Communist Cuba and declared that, “Whatever they [the Chinese] are paying, they are
getting a steal.”
111
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Booster – Zero Sum
China’s ideological differences makes it zero sum with U.S. Heg
Xia, Professor of Political Science at the Graduate Center and the College of Staten
Island, NDG
(Ming Xia, New York Times, No Date Given, “"China Threat" or a "Peaceful Rise of
China"?, http://www.nytimes.com/ref/college/coll-china-politics-007.html,
6/27/2013, PD)
"China's rise" can be seen as a quintessentially political process—through which the ruling Communist
Party has sought to shore up its legitimacy after the Cultural Revolution irreversibly changed the nation
and caused three crises of ideological belief, faith in the CPC, and confidence in the future. As the Party
realized that the performance-based legitimacy was the only hope for prolonging its rule, economic
development became the highest politics. Consequentially, the success of economic development
would have to cause political implications—the external ones are carefully monitored and evaluated by
China's neighbors and the only superpower of the world—the United States. Will China become a threat
to the United States, Japan, and surrounding countries? The reason for American concern mainly
arises from its hegemonic status in the world politics and the ideological incompatibility of China with
the Western value system. China's stunning economic growth has convinced the West that it is just a
matter of time until China becomes a world superpower. But its ideological orientation makes China a
revolutionary power that is threatening both to the United States' status and global structure. Three
different logics have been constructed to substantiate the "China threat" thesis. First, ideological and
cultural factors make China a threat. For neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration, the mere factor
that China still sticks to communism makes view it adversely. Samuel Huntington has added a cultural
factor: in the clash of civilizations, the "unholy alliance between Islamic and Confucian civilizations" is
the most fundamental threat to the West. For people using this logic, the sensible response from the
U.S. is, in the short run, a containment policy, and confrontation is possible if needed; in the long run,
the promotion of a peaceful transformation within China. Second, geopolitical and geoeconomic
factors. For many realists, even China has shed off its ideological straitjacket, as a great power in size
(territory, population, and economy), China has to pursue its own interest and respect. Nationalism may
still drive China into a course of clash with the United States, if the latter refuses to accommodate or
share the leadership with China as a rising power. Some scholars fear that democracy can unleash
strong nationalism and popular nationalism can make China even more aggressive toward the United
States. Third, the collapse of China. Opposed to the previous two perspectives, some people are
concerned that if China suffers a Soviet-style sudden-death syndrome and spins out of control, it can
create an even worse scenario. The sheer size of the population makes refuge problem, the failed state
and the followed crises (warlordism, civil war, crime, proliferation of nuclear weapons, etc) impossible
for the world to deal with. Due to these three different considerations, the United States often oscillates
from demonization to romaticization of China, from containment to engagement. The U.S.-China
relationship has shifted from conflict, to confrontation, to competition and back to conflict, but so
rarely features with cooperation. One American China specialist characterizes the bilateral relationship
as "the sweet-and-sour Sino-American relationship."
China threatens US hegemony ---- influence is zero-sum
Ramakrishnan, Competitive Industries Practice at The World Bank, 08
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
112
(Karuna, March 25, 2008, Helium, “Is the rise of China as a global power a threat to American
hegemony?” http://www.helium.com/debates/150604-is-the-rise-of-china-as-a-global-power-a-threatto-american-hegemony/side_by_side?page=2, ACCESSED Jun 30, 2013, RJ)
The rise of China since 1990 has been superlative: the world has witnessed its galloping growth in almost every sphere. In political and cultural
diplomacy, military capability, and economic strength, China is rising some say it has already risen - as a world super power. Three decades
since the bamboo curtain lifted, there has been a power shift', as China resumes its place as Asia's star; a shift that will be showcased as Beijing
prepares to host a glitzy Olympics later this year. As its export juggernaut rolls on, China
is catching up with developed
nations, with a 10% rate of economic growth, a swelling trade surplus and a newly-opened economy. But, Prime Minister Hu
Jintao's assertions of a "peaceful rise" find no takers in American diplomatic circles, where China is
perceived as a coercive power - its ballooning military budget, combined with its capabilities shrouded
in secrecy, make its military policies at odds with its stated peaceful means. China's restrictive trade
policies, its insatiable hunger for oil and other natural resources reveal tell-tale signs of a powergrabbing giant, with the capability to back its will. Will the rise of China be a threat to the United States in the international
system? The post-Cold War world, on which America stamped its supremacy, was largely uni-polar, with
capitalist ideology winning decisively over communist principles . The consolidation and growth of the European
Union was in tandem with the shift of the balance of power to the western hemisphere, and posed no military threat to America. The North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an international defense alliance formed between the US and European super-powers in 1949 is
effective even today. The US and the EU have strong links, both diplomatic and economic, and they largely agree on all strategic
military concerns. While America, the world's richest democracy retains its place as a regional hegemon, there is a definite shift in
the balance of power towards Asia in general, and China in particular. I would assess China's rise as a
definite threat to American power, a threat, which has the potential to create conditions for conflict in a backdrop of anarchy (i.e. lacking a global policeman) the ultimate goal of every nation is to maximize its share of
world power and eventually dominate the system. Power, therefore is a "zero-sum" game if one
states gains power, another state has to lose it, and that defines the conflict between nation-states.
By this line of thought, an increase in China's power must mean a decrease in America's . The present day
scenario in which a resurgent China, with varied weaponry a surging economy, nuclear capability, and a
swelling middle class, poses a very real threat to American hegemony. Even though military conflict
with the US will hurt China's economy (since its principle trading partner is America), it would be naive to put it past
China to start a war to upset the balance of power. It would also not be paranoid to presume that
China is likely to mirror in Asia, America's strategy of domination - as China tries to rise above its
neighbors, Japan, Russia and India, it will seek to ensure that no state in Asia can threaten it. China may
not conquer other large Asian countries, but will increasingly outline the way forward in neighborly behavior (whether it's the border issue with
India in Siachin, or energy-sharing with Russia). The idea that America keeps world order by providing public goods' like nuclear nonproliferation, fighting terrorism, building and democratizing states ignores its intentions of cornering critical resources for its excessive,
China
as a counter-point to American hegemony is attractive not only for those bullied by America (Iran,
Venezuela, Syria, Pakistan), but also for nearly-developed nations (India, Brazil, South Africa) who can play one superpower against another in cornering political and economic mileage. President Bush's vision of a foreign policy which
consumerist ways. And the concept of a single authority which enforces rules and order, by definition, erodes its legitimacy. Therefore,
steers the world towards a "distinctly American Internationalism", may not find many takers in this era of multi-polarity, with China matching
the US step for step in its no-holds-barred exploitative capitalism, its addiction to oil and an affluent middle-class. Despite its diplomatic overdrive to smoke-screen this very fact, the
crouching dragon has bared its claws, and prudent policy is imperative
for America to retain its post-Cold War status.
AND HEGEMONY IS ZERO SUM --- CHINESE SOFT POWER IN LATIN AMERICA
THREATENS US HEGEMONY.
Christensen, William P. Boswell Professor of World Politics of Peace and War
Co-Director, China and the World Program (CWP), Faculty Chair, M.P.P. Program, 06
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
113
(Thomas J., Summer 2006, Project MUSE, “Fostering Stability or Creating a Monster? The Rise of China
and U.S. Policy toward East Asia,” http://www.princeton.edu/politics/about/filerepository/public/christensen-1.pdf, ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)
In Central Asia, China was the founding member of the SCO, which includes various Central and South Asian actors as
members or observers, but does not include the United States.53 At that organization’s meeting in July 2005, members called for a
timeline for the withdrawal of foreign military forces in member states that were deployed initially to
fight the global war on terror in Afghanistan. This thinly veiled reference to the withdrawal of U.S.
bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan is exactly what zero-sum analysts fear from multilateral
organizations that include both of the potential U.S. great power rivals, China and Russia, and
wavering U.S. security partners such as Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, but do not include the United
States.54 Joshua Kurlantzick emphasizes the dangers of China’s newfound diplomatic “soft power” for
the United States. He sees China vying with the United States for hegemony not just regionally, but
globally. Pointing to how Chinese soft power appears to be spreading quickly to such disparate places
as Latin America and Australia, he writes, “China may become the first nation since the fall of the Soviet
Union that could seriously challenge the United States for control of the international system.”55 In the
fall of 2005, the U.S. commentator Charles Krauthammer adopted a similar zero-sum perspective by
viewing even the prospect of China’s diplomatic success in promoting North Korean denuclearization
as potentially bad for the United States. The perceived danger is that China would gain signiªcant prestige in tackling a knotty
problem that the United States could not solve and, therefore, Beijing would gain in relative power terms vis-à-vis the
United States.56 Some observers have also expressed concern that by asserting its inºuence in the inaugural meeting
of the East Asia Summit (EAS) in December 2005, China has attempted to maximize its power at the expense
of the United States and U.S. allies.57 China’s ofªcial government position is that it does not favor the exclusion of the United
States or other actors from the EAS or from the region more generally.58 But during the early discussions of the EAS’s composition, various
signs suggested that China was at least comfortable with, if not fully supportive of, Malaysia’s position that actors from outside East Asia should
be excluded.59 ASEAN eventually decided to extend EAS membership to any outside power that has signiªcant regional interests and is willing
to sign the association’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, thus opening the door for Australia, India, and New Zealand. Japan apparently had
pushed hard for such an “open” summit and initially seemed to have won the day. According to knowledgeable Chinese and Japanese experts,
however, in the period leading up to the December meeting, China successfully lobbied to place ASEAN plus Three at the core of the process
that will eventually create an East Asian Community (EAC), relegating the more diffuse East Asia Summit to a secondary role. In fact, such a twotiered arrangement for EAC creation was one of the few clear conclusions reached at the inaugural EAS.60 China’s
apparent strategy
before and during the summit suggests to some inside and outside of China that Beijing prefers a
relatively closed process for creation of the EAC, a process in which China can maximize its own
inºuence and minimize the role of states more friendly to the United States.
114
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Booster – Now Key
Relations are on the brink --- new reforms are critical before China takes over
Mallen, reporter for the International Business Times on Latin America, 6/28
(Patricia Rey, June 28, 2013, International Business Times, “Latin America Increases Relations With
China: What Does That Mean For The US?”
http://www.ibtimes.com/latin-america-increases-relations-china-what-does-mean-us-1317981,
ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)
As if to confirm the declining hegemony of the United States as the ruling global superpower, China is
gaining influence in its hemispheric "backyard," Secretary of State John Kerry's unintentionally insulting designation for Latin
America. China has had its sights on Latin America for the past decade and is now positioning itself as a
competitive trade partner in the region. The populous, rapidly developing Asian nation covets oil, soybeans and gold, of which
Latin America has plenty, and has been slowly but steadily increasing its presence and its trade with several countries there. The U.S.,
whose history of blocking outside political influence in Latin America going back to the Monroe
Doctrine, has been directing its attention elsewhere, as Michael Cerna of the China Research Center observed. “[The U.S.']
attention of late has been focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, and Latin America fell lower and lower on America’s list of
priorities. China has been all too willing to fill any void,” Cerna said.Between 2000 and 2009, China increased its two-way trade with Latin
America by 660 percent, from $13 billion at the beginning of the 21st century to more than $120 billion nine years later. Latin American exports
to China reached $41.3 billion, almost 7 percent of the region's total exports. China’s share of the region’s trade was less than 10 percent in
2000; by 2009, the number had jumped to 12 percent. As impressive as that growth is, the numbers still pale in comparison to the U.S.' stats in
its commercial relationship with Latin America. The U.S. still holds more than half of the total trade, adding up to $560 billion in 2008. Notably,
though, America’s
trade participation in Latin America has remained static, while China is closing the gap
more and more each year -- having already surpassed the U.S. in some countries, including
powerhouse Brazil. Concomitant with this burgeoning interest from the Far East, Latin America is undergoing an
economic rebirth. After decades of devastating economic crises, the region is experiencing unprecedented growth: On average, annual
GDP growth for Latin American countries will be 3.7 percent this year, according to United Nations estimates, almost double the average for the
rest of the world. That has prompted several countries to form quasi-governmental entities to further promote the progress of the region. One
such entity is the recently formed Pacific Alliance. Born with the specific goal of increasing relations with Asia, its members include Mexico,
Colombia, Chile and Peru, which together represent half of the region’s total exports and 35 percent of its GDP. In a meeting in Colombian
capital Bogotá last month, the Pacific Alliance signed an agreement to open its member countries' economies to Asian markets; the U.S.,
despite an invitation, did not attend. Though
a recent trip to the region by Vice President Joe Biden seems to run
counter to the Pacific Alliance snub, China’s President Xi Jinping has also visited recently, and likewise
met with Latin American leaders, illustrating how the two global powers are going after the same
prize. Biden traveled to Colombia, Trinidad and Tobago and Brazil in May, with the last leg of his trip coinciding with the beginning of Xi’s in
Trinidad, before jumping to Costa Rica and Mexico. Both leaders met with several Latin American presidents and discussed trade and
cooperation. The
outcomes of their trips were very different, however. Xi’s trip was the first visit from a Chinese official to
and Tobago’s main newspaper, Newsday, called the visit a “historic
occasion” and a “visit from China to a good friend.” Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said she was
committed to boosting relations with China and accepted an invitation to Beijing for November of this
year. In Costa Rica, Xi signed a $400 million loan to build a cross-country road and reaffirmed relations with its main ally in the region. Costa
the region in almost a decade. Trinidad
Rica is the only country in Latin America that sides with China in the mainland-Taiwanese dispute and does not recognize the island as a nation.
Even more significant was Xi’s visit to Mexico. President Enrique Peña Nieto welcomed his Chinese
counterpart, whom he had visited in Beijing in April, and made his intentions clear: Mexico wants
closer trade relations with China, with whom it has a gap of $45 billion in export and import -- an
important development considering that Mexico is, for now, America's biggest trade partner in the
world. Biden’s visit was not as successful. His meeting in Trinidad and Tobago was called “brutal and
tense” by Persad-Bissessar, and Colombian journalist Andrés Oppenheimer deemed the trip a sympathy visit after Secretary John Kerry called
Latin America “Washington’s backyard” in a much-berated slip last April. While Biden had pleasant meetings in Rio and
Bogotá, no agreements were signed during his trip. Perhaps the biggest development in China’s
115
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
investment in the area is the recent decision by the Nicaraguan congress to allow a Chinese company
to build a canal through the country. Although still in the proposal stages, the project would bring profound change to the
geopolitics of the region -- and even the world. If built, the canal could significantly affect commerce through the
Panama Canal, which, though it is now part of Panama's domain, was built by the U.S. and remains a
symbol of the nation's historical dominance in the region. That dominance is in decline. After decades
of uncontested U.S. influence in the region, some Latin American leaders have started making
decidedly anti-American policies. The most notable was the late Venezuelan Comandante Hugo
Chávez, who was very vocal about his disdain for the U.S., but he is far from the only one. Bolivia's
President Evo Morales, for instance, kicked out USAID after Kerry's verbal slip, and has gone so far as
to ban Coca-Cola from the country. But now it's Ecuador bumping heads with its northern neighbor, mostly in regard to Ecuador
granting entry to NSA-secrets leaker Edward Snowden. President Rafael Correa openly said that they would welcome
the whistle-blower because he was a "free man," no matter what the U.S. said. Disagreements between the
governments have led to the cancellation of a special trade agreement, which Ecuador has called "an instrument of blackmail. Beyond the lack
of understanding with its former main trade partner, why is Latin America so smitten with China? Kevin Gallagher, a professor of international
relations at Boston University, says China speaks to the region’s newfound confidence. “China
is offering attractive deals to
Latin American economies while the United States continues to lecture and dictate,” Gallagher wrote for The
Globalist. “For too long, the United States has relied on a rather imperial mechanism, just telling Latin
America what it needs,” he added. “Compare that to China’s approach: It offers Latin America what it
wants.” Gallagher argued that the U.S.’ biggest offer to Latin America is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which offers access to the U.S. market
on three conditions: deregulate financial markets, adopt intellectual property provisions that give preferences to U.S. firms, and allow U.S. firms
to sue governments for violating any of its conditions. China, on the other hand, has
been providing more financing to Latin
America than the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the U.S. Export-Import Bank combined since 2003, with
no previous conditions and very few strings attached. “Latin America is very sensitive to any notions of conditionality due to painful past
experiences with the IMF and the World Bank,” Gallagher said. “China
makes sure that its policy is not based on
conditionalities.” Gallagher said the U.S. should awake from its past slumber and stop taking Latin America for granted. Shlomo Ben-Ami,
vice president of the Toledo International Center for Peace and former Israeli foreign minister, takes a different stance. He argues that China's
advancement in the region does not automatically equate with American loss of preeminence. U.S. exports to Latin America continue to rise (by
94 percent over the past six years), as do imports (87 percent in the same period), and America continues to be the biggest foreign investor in
the area. Perhaps even more crucial are America's cultural and historical ties to the region, Ben-Ami said. “Given the extraordinary growth of
Latinos’ influence in the U.S., it is almost inconceivable that America could lose its unique status in the region to China,” he said. Still, Gallagher
and Ben-Ami agree that the
U.S. needs to step up, both economically and diplomatically, to compete with
new influences in a part of the world that was until recently widely considered America’s domain.
“Gone are the days when military muscle and the politics of subversion could secure U.S. influence -in Latin America or anywhere else,” Ben-Ami said. “It is high time for the U.S. government to undertake a
true rethink of its economic policy toward Latin America,” Gallagher observed. “Very soon, it might be too
late.”
Now is key --- our relations and credibility are on the decline and they need to be fixed
to solve for every impact in the round.
IAD, 12
(Inter-American Dialogue, April 12, “Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America”,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, ACCESSED June 30, 2013,
RJ)
Impressive economic, political, and social progress at home has, in turn, given Brazil, Mexico, Chile,
Colombia, Peru, and many other countries greater access to worldwide opportunities . Indeed, the
region’s most salient transformation may be its increasingly global connections and widening
international relationships . Brazil’s dramatic rise on the world stage most visibly exemplifies the shift .
But other countries, too, are participating actively in global affairs and developing extensive networks of
commercial and political ties . China is an increasingly prominent economic actor, but India and other
Asian countries are intensifying their ties to the region as well . The United States has also changed
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
116
markedly, in ways that many find worrisome . The 2008 financial crisis revealed serious misalignments
in and poor management of the US economy—which, four years later, is still struggling to recover .
Inequality has significantly widened in the United States, while much-needed improvements in
education and infrastructure are ignored . The most ominous change in the United States has taken
place in the political realm . Politics have become less collaborative . It is increasingly difficult to find
common ground on which to build solutions to the critical problems on the policy agenda . Compromise,
the hallmark of democratic governance, has become an ebbing art, replaced by gridlock and inaction on
challenges that would advance US national interests and well-being . In part as a result of these shifts,
US-Latin American relations have grown more distant . The quality and intensity of ties have
diminished . Most countries of the region view the United States as less and less relevant to their
needs—and with declining capacity to propose and carry out strategies to deal with the issues that most
concern them . In the main, hemispheric relations are amicable . Open conflict is rare and, happily, the
sharp antagonisms that marred relations in the past have subsided . But the US-Latin America
relationship would profit from more vitality and direction . Shared interests are not pursued as
vigorously as they should be, and opportunities for more fruitful engagement are being missed . Well
developed ideas for reversing these disappointing trends are scarce. Some enduring problems stand
squarely in the way of partnership and effective cooperation . The inability of Washington to reform its
broken immigration system is a constant source of friction between the United States and nearly
every other country in the Americas . Yet US officials rarely refer to immigration as a foreign policy issue
. Domestic policy debates on this issue disregard the United States’ hemispheric agenda as well as the
interests of other nations . Another chronic irritant is US drug policy, which most Latin Americans now
believe makes their drug and crime problems worse . Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while visiting
Mexico, acknowledged that US anti-drug programs have not worked . Yet, despite growing calls and
pressure from the region, the United States has shown little interest in exploring alternative
approaches . Similarly, Washington’s more than half-century embargo on Cuba, as well as other
elements of United States’ Cuba policy, is strongly opposed by all other countries in the hemisphere .
Indeed, the US position on these troublesome issues—immigration, drug policy, and Cuba—has set
Washington against the consensus view of the hemisphere’s other 34 governments . These issues
stand as obstacles to further cooperation in the Americas . The United States and the nations of Latin
America and the Caribbean need to resolve them in order to build more productive partnerships .
There are compelling reasons for the United States and Latin America to pursue more robust ties . Every
country in the Americas would benefit from strengthened and expanded economic relations, with
improved access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and energy resources . Even with its
current economic problems, the United States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market and source of
capital (including remittances) and technology for Latin America, and it could contribute more to the
region’s economic performance . For its part, Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably become
more and more crucial to the United States’ economic future . The United States and many nations of
Latin America and the Caribbean would also gain a great deal by more cooperation on such global
matters as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and democracy and human rights . With a
rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 million, the cultural and demographic
integration of the United States and Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a
firmer basis for hemispheric partnership. Despite the multiple opportunities and potential benefits,
relations between the United States and Latin America remain disappointing . If new opportunities
are not seized, relations will likely continue to drift apart . The longer the current situation persists,
the harder it will be to reverse course and rebuild vigorous cooperation . Hemispheric affairs require
urgent attention—both from the United States and from Latin America and the Caribbean
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
117
The embargo undermines US credibility and that’s key to solving multiple impacts –
energy security, democracy, and climate change.
IAD, 12
(Inter-American Dialogue, April 12, “Remaking the Relationship: The United States and Latin America”,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf, ACCESSED June 30, 2013,
RJ)
Relations between the United States and Latin America are at a curious juncture . In the past decade, most
Latin American countries have made enormous progress in managing their economies and reducing inequality and, especially, poverty, within a
democratic framework . These critical changes have brought greater autonomy, expanded global links, and growing self-confidence . It
is
now the United States that is in a sour mood, struggling with a still weak economic recovery,
diminished international stature and influence, and fractured politics at home . These recent changes
have profoundly affected Inter-American relations . While relations are today cordial and largely free of the antagonisms of
the past, they also seem without vigor and purpose . Effective cooperation in the Americas, whether to deal with urgent problems or to take
advantage of new opportunities, has been disappointing . The Inter-American Dialogue’s report is a call to all nations of the hemisphere to take
stock, to rebuild cooperation, and to reshape relations in a new direction . All
governments in the hemisphere should be
more attentive to emerging opportunities for fruitful collaboration on global and regional issues
ranging across economic integration, energy security, protection of democracy, and climate change .
The United States must regain its credibility in the region by dealing seriously with an unfinished
agenda of problems—including immigration, drugs, and Cuba—that stands in the way of a real
partnership . To do so, it needs the help of Latin America and the Caribbean
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
118
UQ – Embargo - > Expansion
Lifting the Cuban Embargo Resolves All Alt Causes
Lee, Stanford Ph.D. and President of Global Advisory Services, 8
(Rens, 8/26/8, ISN, “In Havana, waiting for Obama or for Putin?”,
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=90543, 6/26/13,
AL)
Indeed, no president could unilaterally lift the US embargo - the
main sticking point in US-Cuban relations - because US law
(the 1996 Helms-Burton Act) mandates preconditions for this, such as legalization of all political activity and departure of the
Castro brothers from the political scene, that Cuba finds unacceptable. But a new president who is open to dialogue with America's enemies could prevail on a
solidly democratic Congress to amend or abrogate the law and thus un-freeze the US-Cuban relationship. The
embargo bans most US trade
with and all investment in Cuba. While damaging the country's economy, it has obviously failed in its
intended purpose of getting rid of the Castro regime. Cuba remains a police state in which the population is subject to a repressive
control and, excepting favored few, lives at or close to the subsistence level. (Interestingly, the police are among the best paid professionals in Cuba, earning almost
twice the miserly average wage of US$17 per month). Cuba-watchers debate whether lifting the embargo and flooding the country with US tourists and
businesspersons would erode the legitimacy of the current regime or breathe new life into it. Yet there
are very good strategic reasons
why America should not continue its policy of isolating Cuba, even in the absence of positive signs of
democratization on the island. One reason is that the current US policy makes Cuba a target of
opportunity for a resurgent and increasingly hostile Russia. Vladimir Putin talks openly about "restoring our
position in Cuba," and hints are surfacing in Moscow that Russia might reestablish a military and
intelligence presence on the island in response to the planned missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. Other energydependent countries (such as China and India) already are negotiating exploration rights, but because
Cuba is a sanctioned country, US companies are forced to stand idly by. Opening Cuba to commerce
and interchange with the United States could, as many argue, plant the seeds of democracy and capitalism
there and give Americans some leverage to moderate the regime's police-state characteristics.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
119
Impact – China – Environment
Chinese investment leads to destruction of the Latin American exports and less
environmental regulation
Gallagher, Professor International relations Boston University, 4/30
(Kevin, The Guardian, “Latin America playing a risky game by welcoming in the
Chinese dragon,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/povertymatters/2013/may/30/latin-america-risky-chinese-dragon, 4/30/2013, EB)
The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, travels to the US and Latin America this week, for the first time since
he took office in March. What a difference a decade makes. Ten years ago, there would hardly have
been any fanfare about a Chinese visit to the region. Now, for Brazil, Chile and others, China is the most
important trade and investment partner. China-Latin America trade surpassed $250bn (£165bn) last
year.¶ Although China's impact in Africa receives the most attention, China trades just as much in Latin
America as in Africa, and has more investments in the region. Chinese finance in Latin America – chiefly
from the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China – is staggeringly large and
growing. In a recently updated report, colleagues and I estimate that, since 2005, China has provided
loan commitments of more than $86bn to Latin American countries. That is more than the World Bank
or the Inter-American Development Bank have provided to the region during the same period.¶ China's
presence is a great opportunity for Latin America, but it brings new risks. If the region can seize the
new opportunities that come with Chinese finance, countries could come closer to their development
goals, and pose a real challenge to the way western-backed development banks do business. However,
if Latin American nations don't channel this new trade and investment toward long-term growth and
sustainability, the risks may take away many of the rewards.¶ First, the positive side. Chinese trade and
investment is partly a blessing for Latin America because it diversifies the sources of finance – finance
that for too long has relied on the west. The US and European economies have been anaemic since
2008, and trade with China has tugged Latin American growth rates to impressive levels. Every 1%
increase in Chinese growth is correlated with a 1.2% increase in Latin American growth.¶ Chinese finance
is more in tune with what Latin American nations want, rather than with what western development
experts say they "need". Whereas the US and international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the World
Bank and IMF tend to finance in line with the latest development fads such as trade liberalisation and
micro-anti-poverty programmes, Chinese loans tend to go into energy and infrastructure projects in a
region that has an annual infrastructure gap of $260bn.¶ Neither do Chinese loans come with the harsh
strings attached to IFI finance. The IFIs are notorious for their "conditionalities" that make borrowers
sign up to austerity and structural adjustment programmes that have had questionable outcomes on
growth and equality in the region.¶ But there are risks. While the Chinese do not attach policy conditions
to their loans, they have required that borrowers contract Chinese firms, buy Chinese equipment, and
sometimes sign oil sale agreements that require nations to send oil to China in exchange for the loans
instead of local currency.¶ Chinese investment accentuates the deindustrialisation of Latin America.
Large scale, capital intensive commodities production is not very employment-intensive, nor does it
link well with other sectors of an economy. Dependence on commodities can cause a "resource curse"
where the exchange rate appreciates such that exporters of manufacturing and services industries
can't compete in world markets – and thus contribute to deindustrialisation and economic
vulnerability.¶ Producing natural resource-based commodities also brings major environmental risk.
Many of China's iron, soy and copper projects are found in Latin America's most environmentally
sensitive areas. In areas such as the Amazon and the Andean highlands, conflict over natural resources,
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
120
property rights and sustainable livelihoods have been rife for decades.¶ In our report, we find that
Chinese banks actually operate under a set of environmental guidelines that surpass those of their
western counterparts when at China's stage of development. Nevertheless, those guidelines are not
on par with 21st century standards for development banking. Stronger standards should be in place at
a time when environmental concerns are at an all-time high. With every opportunity comes a
challenge. Latin Americans have access to a new source of finance that gives them more leeway to meet
their own development goals. If Latin America doesn't channel some of the finance to support
macroeconomic stability, economic diversification, equality and environmental protection, this new
source of finance could bring great risk.
121
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Impact—China War
Escalates to extinction
Takai, Military Science Researcher, 9
(Mitsuo, retired colonel and former researcher in the military science faculty of the Staff College for Japan’s Ground Self Defense Force,“U.S.China nuclear strikes would spell doomsday,” http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/10/07/uschina_nuclear_strikes_would_spell_doomsday/7213/, 6-31-13)
Tokyo, Japan — Those who
advocate nuclear armaments, and are now raising their voices in Japan and elsewhere, should
take a look at an objective analysis by U.S. scientists who have disclosed the results of several studies
on strategic nuclear missile strikes. What would happen if China launched its 20 Dongfeng-5 intercontinental
ballistic missiles, each with a 5-megaton warhead, at 20 major U.S. cities? Prevailing opinion in Washington D.C. until
not so long ago was that the raids would cause over 40 million casualties, annihilating much of the
United States. In order to avoid such a doomsday scenario, consensus was that the United States would
have to eliminate this potential threat at its source with preemptive strikes on China. But cool heads at
institutions such as the Federation of American Scientists and the National Resource Defense Council examined
the facts and produced their own analyses in 2006, which differed from the hard-line views of their contemporaries. The FAS and NRDC
developed several scenarios involving nuclear strikes over ICBM sites deep in the Luoning Mountains in
China’s western province of Henan, and analyzed their implications. One of the scenarios involved direct strikes on 60 locations –
including 20 main missile silos and decoy silos – hitting each with one W76-class, 100-kiloton multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle
carried on a submarine-launched ballistic missile. In
order to destroy the hardened silos, the strikes would aim for
maximum impact by causing ground bursts near the silos' entrances. Using air bursts similar to the bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not be as effective, as the blasts and the heat would dissipate extensively. In this scenario, the 6 megatons
of ground burst caused by the 60 attacks would create enormous mushroom clouds over 12
kilometers high, composed of radioactive dirt and debris. Within 24 hours following the explosions,
deadly fallout would spread from the mushroom clouds, driven by westerly winds toward Nanjing and
Shanghai. They would contaminate the cities' residents, water, foodstuff and crops, causing
irreversible damage. The impact of a 6-megaton nuclear explosion would be 360 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb,
killing not less than 4 million people. Such massive casualties among non-combatants would far exceed the military purpose of
destroying the enemy's military power. This would cause political harm and damage the United States’ ability to achieve its war aims, as it
would lose international support. On the other hand, China
could retaliate against U.S. troops in East Asia, employing
intermediate-range ballistic missiles including its DF-3, DF-4 and DF-21 missiles, based in Liaoning and Shandong provinces,
which would still be intact. If the United States wanted to destroy China's entire nuclear retaliatory capability,
U.S. forces would have to employ almost all their nuclear weapons, causing catastrophic
environmental hazards that could lead to the annihilation of mankind. Accordingly, the FAS and NRDC
conclusively advised U.S. leaders to get out of the vicious cycle of nuclear competition, which costs
staggering sums, and to promote nuclear disarmament talks with China. Such advice is worth heeding
by nuclear hard-liners.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
122
Impact—China War—Ext.
Yes war—Chinese policy is driven by resource access
Kaplan, Atlantic Monthly Correspondent, 10
(Robert D. National Correspondent for the Atlantic Monthly, Foreign Affairs, 00157120, May/Jun2010, Vol. 89,
Issue 3, “The Geography of Chinese Power”, EBSCO Host, AM)
China's internal dynamism creates external ambitions. Empires rarely come about by design; they grow
organically. As states become stronger, they cultivate new needs and--this may seem counterintuitive-apprehensions that force them to expand in various forms. Even under the stewardship of some of the most
forgettable presidents--Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison --the United
States? economy grew steadily and quietly in the late nineteenth century. As the country traded more
with the outside world, it developed complex economic and strategic interests in far-flung places. Sometimes, as in
South America and the Pacific region, for example, these interests justified military action. The United States was
also able to start focusing outward during that period because it had consolidated the interior of the continent; the
last major battle of the Indian Wars was fought in 1890. China today is consolidating its land borders and
beginning to turn outward. China's foreign policy ambitions are as aggressive as those of the United
States a century ago, but for completely different reasons. China does not take a missionary approach to
world affairs, seeking to spread an ideology or a system of government. Moral progress in international affairs
is an American goal, not a Chinese one; China's actions abroad are propelled by its need to secure
energy, metals, and strategic minerals in order to support the rising living standards of its immense population,
which amounts to about one-fifth of the world's total.
123
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Impact—Hegemony
Hegemony solves global nuclear war
Barnett, US Naval War College Prof, 11
(Thomas, Professor, Warfare Analysis and Research Dept – U.S. Naval War College, “The New Rules:
Leadership Fatigue Puts U.S., and Globalization, at Crossroads,”
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-new-rules-leadership-fatigue-puts-u-s-andglobalization-at-crossroads, 6-31-13)
Events in Libya are a further reminder for Americans that we stand at a crossroads in our continuing
evolution as the world's sole full-service superpower. Unfortunately, we are increasingly seeking
change without cost, and shirking from risk because we are tired of the responsibility. We don't know
who we are anymore, and our president is a big part of that problem. Instead of leading us, he explains
to us. Barack Obama would have us believe that he is practicing strategic patience. But many experts
and ordinary citizens alike have concluded that he is actually beset by strategic incoherence -in effect, a
man overmatched by the job. It is worth first examining the larger picture: We live in a time of arguably
the greatest structural change in the global order yet endured, with this historical moment's most
amazing feature being its relative and absolute lack of mass violence. That is something to consider
when Americans contemplate military intervention in Libya, because if we do take the step to prevent
larger-scale killing by engaging in some killing of our own, we will not be adding to some fantastically
imagined global death count stemming from the ongoing "megalomania" and "evil" of American
"empire." We'll be engaging in the same sort of system-administering activity that has marked our
stunningly successful stewardship of global order since World War II. Let me be more blunt: As the
guardian of globalization, the U.S. military has been the greatest force for peace the world has ever
known. Had America been removed from the global dynamics that governed the 20th century, the
mass murder never would have ended. Indeed, it's entirely conceivable there would now be no
identifiable human civilization left, once nuclear weapons entered the killing equation. But the world
did not keep sliding down that path of perpetual war. Instead, America stepped up and changed
everything by ushering in our now-perpetual great-power peace. We introduced the international
liberal trade order known as globalization and played loyal Leviathan over its spread. What resulted
was the collapse of empires, an explosion of democracy, the persistent spread of human rights, the
liberation of women, the doubling of life expectancy, a roughly 10-fold increase in adjusted global GDP
and a profound and persistent reduction in battle deaths from state-based conflicts.
124
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Solvency – Plan Key
Status quo policies fail—the plan is key for US hegemony in Cuba and the Western
Hemisphere
Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, 09
(Richard N., 3/6/09, The Daily beast, “Forget About Fidel,”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/06/forget-about-fidel.html,
accessed 6/23/13, IC)
The American policy of isolating Cuba has failed. Officials boast that Havana now hosts more diplomatic
missions than any other country in the region save Brazil. Nor is the economic embargo working. Or worse: it is working,
but for countries like Canada, South Korea and dozens of others that are only too happy to help supply Cuba with food, generators and building
materials. Those in Congress who complain about the "offshoring" of American jobs ought to consider that the
embargo deprives
thousands of American workers of employment.¶ The policy of trying to isolate Cuba also works—perversely
enough—to bolster the Cuban regime. The U.S. embargo provides Cuba's leaders a convenient excuse—the country's
economic travails are due to U.S. sanctions, they can claim, not their own failed policies. The lack of American visitors and
investment also helps the government maintain political control.¶ There is one more reason to doubt the wisdom of
continuing to isolate Cuba. However slowly, the country is changing. The question is whether the United States will
be in a position to influence the direction and pace of this change. We do not want to see a Cuba that fails, in which
the existing regime gives way to a repressive regime of a different stripe or to disorder marked by drugs, criminality, terror or a humanitarian
crisis that prompts hundreds of thousands of Cubans to flee their country for the United States. Rather, Washington
should work to
shape the behavior and policy of Cuba's leadership so that the country becomes more open politically and
economically.¶ Fifty years of animosity cannot be set aside in a stroke, but now is the time for Washington to act. Much of the initiative lies
with the new president. President Obama, could, for example, make good on campaign promises to allow Cuban-Americans to freely remit
funds to relatives in Cuba and to visit them regularly, and could loosen travel restrictions for others as well. (Some of these measures can be
found in legislation currently working its way through Congress.) Obama could also initiate technical contacts. Each country already maintains
an "interests section," a small embassy by another name, in the other's capital. They also share information about weather. But they could
resume exchanges on such common challenges as migration and drug interdiction, and initiate them on homeland security and
counterterrorism.¶ Going beyond this and dealing with the basics of the embargo—or removing Cuba from the list of state sponsors of
terrorism—would likely require congressional approval. Current law, though, makes it almost impossible to take such steps. It requires that
Cuba effectively become a functioning democracy before sanctions can be lifted. But it's precisely engagement that is far more likely to reform
Cuba. Preconditions are an obstacle to effective foreign policy.¶ The Obama administration has a great opportunity to begin modifying U.S.
policy before or during the Summit of the Americas, to be held in April in Trinidad. A
new U.S. policy would not only increase
U.S. influence in Cuba, but it probably would also be the single most powerful way in which Obama could
improve the U.S.'s standing throughout the Western Hemisphere. The United States can engage with China and
Russia, not to mention North Korea, Syria and even Iran. Surely it ought to be able to do so with Cuba.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
125
Solvency – Credibility
The embargo undermines US credibility and international relations
Sadon, Washington Post Editor, 9/7
(Rachel, September 7, 2012, Latin American Advisor, “U.S. Lacks Credibility on Cuba, Should End
Embargo: Carter,” http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3077 ACCESSED June 24,
2013, RJ)
The United States should end its embargo against Cuba and seek constructive dialogue with the Caribbean nation, former U.S. President Jimmy
Carter said Thursday. "We
should all continue to press the Cuban government to respect individual rights
and more political openness, but the embargo undermines any credibility that [the United States] has
in calling for improvements in Cuba." ¶ Carter restored relations between the two nations after taking office in 1977,
establishing special interest sections in Havana and Washington, and has long championed an improved relationship with Cuba. But a "small
group of anti-Castro leaders in Florida, who have a major and exaggerated influence in the outcome of the elections" have dictated U.S. policy,
he said at the conference, which was sponsored by the CAF Development Bank of Latin America, the Inter-American Dialogue and the
Organization of American States. ¶ Carter also took the administration to task for keeping Cuba on the list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism." The
country was placed on the black list in 1982 for links to revolutionary "terrorist" groups and remains there for ostensible ties to the FARC and
Basque separatist party ETA (as well as fugitives wanted in U.S. courts and "deficiencies" in fighting money laundering). But the Cuban offices of
those groups created an opening to begin productive and valuable discussions, said Carter. "The Colombian and Spanish ambassadors told me
that this offered them an opportunity to dialogue, as evidenced by Colombia's announcement of the new peace talks in Cuba." ¶ Referring to
the recently revealed peace talks with the FARC, Carter praised the administration of Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. He expressed
hope for the future of the talks, which are set to begin in Oslo on Oct. 8 and later relocate to Havana, and also commended Santos for restoring
diplomatic with Ecuador and Venezuela. "They don't agree on everything, but they can now work together on threats to security." ¶ The
former president also stressed the continued importance of the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (IACHR). Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua earlier this year threatened to pull out
of the organization if it isn't reformed and the OAS has agreed to draft a reform plan. Rights advocates fear
that the commission, which has long been considered a critical watchdog in the region, could be seriously weakened. "We must look for
additional ways to strengthen the commission on human rights and ensure its independence from political pressures... [it] may need some
reforms to be more efficient, but its autonomy must not be reduced," emphasized Carter. ¶ He
also warned against governments
trampling on basic rights because of fears of insecurity or terrorism, alluding to steps that the Obama
administration has taken. "We must safeguard the hard won gains we have made to prevent the abuse of power that inevitably
results when the executive claims for itself unchecked power to detain and even kill persons it considers a threat." Americans' fear of
terrorism has led to indefinite detention in Guantanamo and surveillance of American citizens without
warrants, "which I hope we will correct," he said.
The embargo is internationally unpopular and destroys US credibility – only the plan
solves
Edmonds, Writer for the North American Congress on Latin America, 11/15
(Kevin, November 15, 2012, NACLA, “Despite Global Opposition, United States Votes to Continue Cuban
Embargo,” https://nacla.org/blog/2012/11/15/despite-global-opposition-united-states-votes-continuecuban-embargo, Accessed June 24, 2013, RJ)
In a near unanimous vote at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, the vast majority of
the world voted to put an end the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba. Aside from the moral argument, the
driving principles behind the vote to end the embargo were those regarding the sovereign equality of states, non-intervention in internal
affairs, and the freedom of international trade and navigation. In total, 188 countries voted in favor of the resolution [3], with the U.S., Israel,
and Palau voting against it, and the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia abstaining.
It was the twenty first
consecutive year that the resolution passed by an overwhelming majority in the U.N. The last time the United
States had normal relations with Cuba, the Andy Griffith Show was the most popular show on TV, African Americans couldn’t vote, McDonalds
only had 228 locations [4], and Barack Obama would not be born for another year. It was indeed a different world.¶ "Photo Credit: The Right
Perspective"¶ It was thought that President Obama knew this as well when he made headlines [5] in 2009 by stating that he sought “a new
beginning” with Cuba, as the outdated and damaging policy was more ideological than practical, Tuesday’s vote showed that when it came to
the embargo, nothing has changed.¶ The embargo began in 1960 when the United States sought to punish revolutionary Cuba for nationalizing
properties which previously belonged to U.S. corporations and citizens. To put things in perspective, after Cuba gained “formal” independence
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
126
in 1902, it was still governed largely by the neo-colonial Platt Amendment [6]. This imposition stipulated that the Cuban government could not
make alliances or sign treaties with any foreign government without the permission of the United States. Article III of the Amendment stated
that [7] the government of Cuba must consent to the right of the United States to intervene in Cuban affairs for “the preservation of Cuban
independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty.” Thus the Platt
Amendment set the stage for repeated U.S. intervention in Cuba in 1906, 1912, 1917, and 1920.¶ While the Platt Amendment was scrapped in
1934 under President Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy, U.S. companies already dominated the Cuban economy, which owned 60% of rural
properties [8], 90% of Cuban mines [9] and mineral exports, and 80% of the utilities and railroads. The United States also backed businessfriendly strongmen which ensured that the neo-colonial status quo would continue. Students of American history would be right to recognize
that a similar pattern of foreign economic control sparked their very own revolution in 1776.¶ In many ways, the ongoing Cuban embargo is one
of the most symbolic policies of U.S. imperial control in the Americas. That said, the impact is much more than merely symbolic for the Cuban
people, as according to [10] Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, the embargo is “an act of aggression and a permanent danger to the
stability of the nation.Ӧ While the Cuban embargo was ultimately created to isolate Cuba economically and politically, the routine imposition
of harsher conditions has failed to bring down the Castro government. In 1992, President George H. Bush signed the Cuban Democracy Act [11]
(also known as the Torricelli Act) into law, which forbids subsidiaries of U.S. companies from trading with Cuba, U.S. nationals from traveling to
Cuba and remittances being sent to the country. The Cuban Democracy Act [12] also attempts to limit the amount of interaction the
international community has with Cuba by “imposing sanctions on any country that provides assistance to Cuba, including ending U.S.
assistance for those countries and by disqualifying them from benefiting from any programme of reduction or forgiveness of debt owed to the
USA.” It was widely assumed that after the fall of the Soviet Union it would only be a matter of time before Castro fell as well.¶ When that
prediction didn’t materialize, President Bill Clinton signed the internationally condemned Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act in law
(more commonly known as the Helms-Burton Act) in March 1996. This act further deepened the sanctions against Cuba as it sought to [11]
“strengthen international sanctions against the Castro government,” and to “plan for support of a transition government leading to a
democratically elected government in Cuba.” The Helms-Burton Act allowed for any non-U.S. company that dealt with Cuba to be subjected to
legal action and that the respective company's leadership could be barred from entry into the United States. This essentially meant that many
international businesses were blackmailed to choose between operating in Cuba or the United States—which financially speaking isn’t much of
a choice in regards to market size.¶ Like any embargo—whether in Iran, Gaza, or Cuba—it is the regular people who suffer the most. While
there is a wide disagreement on the exact amount of harm the embargo has done to the Cuban economy, the estimates range between one
[13] and three [14] trillion $US. In 2008, the Indian Delegation to the United Nations stated that [15] “The negative impact of the embargo is
pervasive in the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of human development in Cuba, severely affecting the most vulnerable
socioeconomic groups of the Cuban population.Ӧ President Jimmy Carter highlighted the failure of the embargo in September, when he stated
the
embargo undermines any credibility that [the United States] has in calling for improvements in Cuba."¶
Cuba’s Foreign Minister went on to question the logic of the embargo, remarking that [17] “Keeping this policy in force is not in
the national interest of the United States. Quite on the contrary, it harms the interests of its citizens and companies—
that [16] "We should all continue to press the Cuban government to respect individual rights and more political openness, but
especially in times of economic crisis and high unemployment—which, according to every poll, are demanding a change of policy .... What's the
point of encroaching on the constitutional and civil rights and the freedom of travel of Americans by preventing them from visiting the Island
when they can visit any other place in the planet, including those where their country is waging wars?Ӧ While the world has called on the
United States to [3] “act on the right side of history” by lifting the crushing and unnecessary economic embargo on Cuba, it must also remove
Cuba from the U.S. State Department’s list of Sponsors of State Terrorism. This position is highly problematic, as the United States has actively
engaged in over 50 years of economic and covert destabilization in Cuba, going so far as blindly protecting wanted terrorists such as Luis Posada
Carilles [18] and Orlando Bosch [19], both former CIA agents accused of dozens of terrorist attacks in Cuba and the United States.¶ The double
standard of dealing with noted human rights abusers such as China, Saudi Arabia and Colombia, while isolating Cuba, does not make sense.
Obama’s re-election has meant that he is no longer captive to a potentially extreme anti-Cuba voting bloc in Florida. In fact, calls for
normalization [20] of relations with Cuba have been on the increase. Given that Obama has stated that [5] “I am not interested in talking for the
sake of talking, but I do believe that we can move U.S.-Cuban relations in a new direction”—it is time for meaningful, progressive engagement
with Cuba to occur. Tuesday’s vote showed how out of touch America is on this issue. Given the other foreign
relations nightmares Obama has both inherited and created, normalizing relations with Cuba would be a realistically achievable and just goal
for his second term.
Lifting the embargo solves US and Cuban economy, US relations with Latin America,
and global US perception
Hanson et al., economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, 13
(Daniel, & Batten, Dayne, affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department
of Public Policy, & Ealey, Harrison, financial analyst. 1/16/13, Forbes “It’s Time For The
U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba,”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-itssenseless-embargo-of-cuba/, accessed 6/23/13. IC)
127
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
While the
embargo has been through several legal iterations in the intervening years, the general tenor of the U.S. position toward Cuba is a hardline not-inoutdated, hypocritical, and
counterproductive.¶ The Cuban embargo was inaugurated by a Kennedy administration executive order in 1960 as a response to the confiscation of
American property in Cuba under the newly installed Castro regime. The current incarnation of the embargo – codified primarily in the Helms-Burton
Act – aims at producing free markets and representative democracy in Cuba through economic sanctions, travel
restrictions, and international legal penalties.¶ Since Fidel Castro abdicated power to his brother Raul in 2008, the
government has undertaken more than 300 economic reforms designed to encourage enterprise, and
restrictions have been lifted on property use, travel, farming, municipal governance, electronics access, and more. Cuba is still a place of
oppression and gross human rights abuse, but recent events would indicate the 11 million person nation is moving in the right direction.¶ Despite
my-backyard approach to communism a la the Monroe Doctrine. The official position is
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
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
for enforcing different provisions of the embargo, and
Miami International Airport, visitors arriving from a Cuban airport are seven times more likely to be stopped and subjected to further 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. ¶ 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.¶ Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba unimpeded, the
sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For
American multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges.¶ 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. ¶ 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.¶
The embargo is the crux of our negative IR perceptions – the plan solves for our
international perception
Arzeno, Major and MBA from the University of Miami, 03
(Mario A., 2003, “The U.S. Embargo on Cuba: A Time for Change?”, pg 7, RJ)
This brings us to where we are today and the importance of researching this issue. The situation in Cuba
has continuously been debated in the United States since Castro’s revolution and government take
over in 1959. Incredibly, Fidel Castro has outlasted nine U.S. presidents and working on his tenth. He has
been a controversial object of fascination, hatred and in many instances admiration by people all over
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
128
the world. People all over the world admire Castro because they see him as the defiant leader against
the American super power, which is resented and perceived by many countries as imperialistic and
intrusive following the Cold War. The U.S. fuels this perception by maintaining an embargo that
empowers Castro to first defy the U.S. and secondly to use as a scapegoat for the failures of his
socialist regime.
The embargo destroys US credibility – makes us look imperialistic
Arzeno, Major and MBA from the University of Miami, 03
(Mario A., 2003, “The U.S. Embargo on Cuba: A Time for Change?”, pg 7, RJ)
The flaw with this idea and the Helms-Burton Act is that the United States has lost international
credibility, by passing a law criticized as imperialistic in nature by the U.S. imposing its power, authority
and influence over a sovereign nation, with unconditional and inflexible terms for change before it will
entertain the idea of lifting the embargo. This is not the intent of an embargo. An embargo is not
designed to mandate how a country should run its internal affairs.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
129
Solvency – Soft Power
Lifting the embargo is key to soft power – it’s necessary to achieving hemispheric
leadership
Gerz-Escandon, Independent scholar & former professor of political science based in
Atlanta, 8
(Jennifer, 10/8/08, MC Monitor, “End the US-Cuba embargo: It’s a win-win”,
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1009/p09s02-coop.html,
6/24/13, AL)
For its part, by
ending the embargo, the US simultaneously gains security through stability in Cuba. More
important, by investing in the future prototype for emerging markets – a 42,803-square-mile green energy and technology
lab called Cuba – America gains a dedicated partner in the search for energy independence . Supporters of the embargo
say it serves as an important symbolic protest of Cuba's deplorable human rights record and its lack of
political, civil, and economic freedoms. Yet constructive engagement with the reform-ready regime of Mr. Castro – utilizing a framework
based on mutual economic interests similar to US-China relations – could give observers more cause for optimism.Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's willingness to
speak openly with Newsweek/CNN journalist Fareed Zakaria last month about democratization is evidence of progress.While phasing out the Cuban embargo won't
render a quick solution to fractured US-Cuba relations or end the evaporation of esteem the US is suffering throughout Latin America, it
would mark a
significant achievement of hemispheric leadership on a divisive issue. By ending the embargo, the US may learn
that under the right circumstances, the soft power of diplomacy proves more effective in reshaping America's
perception in Latin America than the hard power of economic isolation ever did.
Lifting the embargo is key to soft power – it’s necessary to achieving hemispheric
leadership
Gerz-Escandon, Independent scholar & former professor of political science based in
Atlanta, 8
(Jennifer, 10/8/08, MC Monitor, “End the US-Cuba embargo: It’s a win-win”,
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1009/p09s02-coop.html,
6/24/13, AL)
For its part, by
ending the embargo, the US simultaneously gains security through stability in Cuba. More
important, by investing in the future prototype for emerging markets – a 42,803-square-mile green energy and technology
lab called Cuba – America gains a dedicated partner in the search for energy independence . Supporters of the embargo
say it serves as an important symbolic protest of Cuba's deplorable human rights record and its lack of
political, civil, and economic freedoms. Yet constructive engagement with the reform-ready regime of Mr. Castro – utilizing a framework
based on mutual economic interests similar to US-China relations – could give observers more cause for optimism.Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's willingness to
speak openly with Newsweek/CNN journalist Fareed Zakaria last month about democratization is evidence of progress.While phasing out the Cuban embargo won't
render a quick solution to fractured US-Cuba relations or end the evaporation of esteem the US is suffering throughout Latin America, it
would mark a
significant achievement of hemispheric leadership on a divisive issue. By ending the embargo, the US may learn
that under the right circumstances, the soft power of diplomacy proves more effective in reshaping America's
perception in Latin America than the hard power of economic isolation ever did.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
130
Solvency – Soft Power – K/ To Hard Power
Soft Power allows us to implement hard power and hegemony ore efficiently
Nye, Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Foreign Affairs, 04)
(Joseph, speech to Carnegie council,”
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/studio/multimedia/20040413/4466.html?withOther
s=1, 6/30/13, ND)
Ambassador Djerejian, who chaired a bipartisan panel on Public Diplomacy in the Islamic World, argued that the United States spent $150
million on public diplomacy for the whole Islamic world last year, and that is about the equal of two hours of the defense budget, an
extraordinary imbalance. The
United States spends 400 times more on its hard power than on its soft power,
we were to
spend just 1 percent of the military budget on soft power, it would mean quadrupling our public
diplomacy programs. There is something wrong with our approach. ¶ In short, the challenge that we face in dealing
with this new threat of terrorism, particularly the danger of their obtaining weapons of mass destruction, is a
challenge which is very new and real in American foreign policy. But beyond the United States, it is a challenge
for all of modern urban civilization. If this spreads, and we find that people will no longer live in cities
because of fear, we will live in a very different and less favorable world. ¶ At the same time, our approach
to the problem has relied much too heavily on one dimension of a three-dimensional world, one
instrument between hard and soft power. ¶ The answer is not to pretend that hard power doesn’t matter -- it does and
we will need to continue to use it -- but realise that to use hard power without combining it with soft power , which
has all too often been the practice in the last few years, is a serious mistake. ¶ The good news is that in the past the United
States has, as in the Cold War, combined hard and soft power. The bad news is that we are not doing it yet.
But since we have done it once, presumably we can do it again. When we learn how to better combine hard and soft
power, then we will be what I call a smart power.
if you take all the exchange programs and broadcasting programs and lump them together as a measure of soft power. ¶ If
Soft power is key to keeping allies and preventing terror – War on Terror proves
Nye, Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Foreign Affairs, 04
(Joseph, “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics,” book pg. 129-130,
6/30/13, ND)
It is not smart to discount soft power as just a question of image,¶ public relations, and ephemeral popularity. As
we argued earlier, it is¶ a form of power—a means of obtaining desired outcomes. When we¶ discount the
importance of our attractiveness to other countries, we¶ pay a price. Most important, if the United States is so
unpopular in a¶ country that being pro-American is a kiss of death in that country's¶ domestic politics, political
leaders are unlikely to make concessions¶ to help us. Turkey, Mexico, and Chile were prime examples
in the¶ run-up to the Iraq War in March 2003. When American policies lose their legitimacy and credibility in
the eyes of others, attitudes of¶ distrust tend to fester and further reduce our leverage. For example,¶ after 9/11
there was an outpouring of sympathy from Germans for¶ the United States, and Germany joined a
military campaign against¶ the Al Qaeda network. But as the United States geared up for the¶ unpopular
Iraq War, Germans expressed widespread disbelief about¶ the reasons the U.S. gave for going to war such as
the alleged connection of Iraq to 9/11 and the imminence of the threat of weapons¶ of mass destruction. German suspicions were
reinforced by what¶ they* saw as biased American media coverage during the war, and by¶ the failure to find
weapons of mass destruction or prove the connection 109/11 in the aftermath of the war. The combination fostered a¶
climate in which conspiracy theories flourished. By July 2003, according to a Reuters poll, one-third of Germans
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
131
under the age of 30¶ said that the)' thought
the American government might even have¶ staged the original
September 11 attacks."¶ Absurd views feed upon each other, and paranoia can be contagious. American attitudes
toward foreigners harden, and we begin to¶ believe that the rest of the world really does hate us.
Some Americans begin to hold grudges, to mistrust all Muslims, to boycott¶ French wines and rename
French fries, to spread and believe false¶ rumors." In turn, foreigners see Americans as uninformed and in-¶ sensitive to
anyone's interests but their own. They see our media¶ wrapped in the American flag. Some Americans in turn succumb to¶ residual
strands of isolationism, and say that if others choose to see¶ us that way. "To hell with 'em." If foreigners are going to be like¶
that, who cares whether we are popular or not. But to the extent that¶ Americans allow ourselves to become
isolated, we embolden our enemies such as Al Qaeda. Such reactions undercut our soft power and¶
are self-defeating in terms of the outcomes we want.
Improving relations allows us to make allies and lessens the chance of confusion and
conflict
Nye, Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Foreign Affairs, 04
(Joseph, “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics,” book pg. 110-111,
6/30/13, ND)
Each of these three dimensions of public diplomacy plays an important¶ role in helping
to create an attractive image of a
country and¶ this can improve its prospects for obtaining its desired outcomes. But¶ even the best advertising
cannot sell an unpopular product, and, as¶ we saw in chapter 2, policies that appear narrowly self-serving or are¶ arrogantly presented are
likely to consume rather than produce soft¶ power. At best, long-standing friendly
relationships may lead others¶ to be
slightly more tolerant in their responses. Sometimes friends¶ will give you the benefit of the doubt or forgive
more willingly.¶ A communications strategy cannot work if it cuts against the¶ grain of policy. Actions speak louder than
words, and public diplomacy¶ that appears to be mere window dressing for the projection of¶ hard
power is unlikely to succeed. Sir Michael Butler, a British¶ diplomat who admires the United States, explained, "If your
government¶ is perceived as self-interested, reactionary and unhelpful, it¶ will seriously hamper your ability to get
your way-as the U.S. is¶ finding at the moment."37 In 2003, Newt Gingrich, the former¶ Speaker of the House of
Representatives, attacked the State Department¶ for failing to sell America's Iraq policy.38 But selling requires¶ paying attention to your
markets, and on that dimension, the fault¶ did not rest with the State Department. Gingrich also complained¶ about
the removal
of the United States from the UN Human Rights¶ Commission in 2001. But that was in retaliation for
America's failure¶ to pay its UN dues (a policy that originated in Congress) and the¶ unilateral policies of the new
Bush administration (which often originated¶ in other executive departments, against the warnings of the¶ State Department). Senator
Charles Hagel, a Nebraska Republican,¶ noted that after 9/II many people in Washington were suddenly talking
about the need for a renewed public diplomacy to "'get our¶ message out.' ... But Madison Avenue-style
packaging cannot market¶ a contradictory or confusing message. We need to reassess the¶ fundamentals
of our diplomatic approach .... Policy and diplomacy¶ must match, or marketing becomes a confusing
and transparent barrage¶ of mixed messages."39
132
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Solvency - Perception
Plan key to perception – promotes LA cooperation and solves democracy – empirics
White, Former US Ambassador, 3/7
(Robert E., March 7 2013, The New York Times, “After Chavez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With
Cuba,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latinamerica.html?pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print , 6/24/13. RJ)
FOR most of our history, the United States assumed that its security was inextricably linked to a partnership
with Latin America. This legacy dates from the Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, through the Rio pact, the postwar treaty that
pledged the United States to come to the defense of its allies in Central and South America.¶ Yet for a half-century, our policies toward our
southern neighbors have alternated between intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities.
The death this week of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous
critic of the United States among the political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades — offers an opportunity to
restore bonds with potential allies who share the American goal of prosperity.¶ Throughout his career, the autocratic Mr. Chávez used
our embargo as a wedge with which to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up the rule of Mr. Castro
and his brother Raúl, Cuba’s current president. The
embargo no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did at all);
President Obama
should end it, though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress.¶
An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States
wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas.¶ I joined the State
Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F.
Kennedy’s creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic
Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end
of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century.¶ Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who
wanted democratic change, not violent revolution. Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance
for
Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe
from Communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy’s focus
on Latin America rekindled
the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept
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
of inter-American relations.¶ Tragically, after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, the
policies that supported dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the
secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military’s responsibility for the murders of four
American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the Foreign Service.¶ The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the
power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United
States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We armed them, trained them and covered up
their crimes.¶ After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research institute,
the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that United States policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth
that the insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, “we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends
humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception of the national interest.” ¶ Over the subsequent
quarter-century, a series of profound political, social and economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and,
with them, longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington
and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Mr. Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and
Caribbean States — which excludes the United States and Canada — as an alternative.¶ At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded
the United States, Mr. Chávez said that “the most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the
hegemony of empire.”¶ Mr. Chávez was masterful at manipulating America’s antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to
attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal
continent, a source of cheap commodities and labor.¶ Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped
the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin America’s leading
statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Mr. Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.¶ Lula, as he is
universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been since the
very early years of the Castro regime.¶ After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to accomplish by stealth and
133
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action and porous boycott succeeded primarily
in bringing shame on the United States and turning Mr. Castro into a folk hero.¶ And even now, despite the relaxing of travel restrictions and
Raúl Castro’s announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile community continues. The fact
that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate — Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas — are rising stars in the
Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations. (The third member, Senator Robert
Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his power has been weakened by a
continuing ethics controversy.)¶ Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak nation can
prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive?¶ The
re-election of President Obama, and the
death of Mr. Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel
Castro has exerted for five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out
to Latin American leaders like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of
American States. The message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba
and asks your help.¶ Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a
multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba
achieve a sufficient measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed
entirely of elected governments.¶ If, however, our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the
emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy
friendly relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of
partners cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote.
Plan is key to sending a signal – demographic shifts and international support
Ballve, PhD in geography @ Berkeley, 08
(Teo, December 29, 2008, The Progressive, “On the 50th Anniversary of the Cuban Revolution, Obama
should signal an end to the embargo,” http://progressive.org/mp/balve122908.html , ACCESSED June
24, 2013, RJ)
This week marks the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution, an opportune time for President-elect Obama to signal an end to the Cuban
embargo.¶ During the campaign, Obama promised to “turn the page and begin to write a new chapter in U.S.-Cuba policy.” Contrary to the
Bush administration's policies, Obama said he would give Cuban-Americans “unrestricted rights” to visit family and send cash remittances to
the island.¶ But Obama stopped short of endorsing an end to the embargo. He said he planned to use it as “leverage” over the Cuban
government to induce democratic reforms. This strategy has repeatedly failed, leaving U.S.-Cuba relations frozen in a Cold War iceberg since
fatigue-clad rebels marched victoriously into Havana on New Year's Day, 1959.¶ “The
embargo is a policy that hasn't worked
in nearly 50 years,” Wayne Smith, the former head of Washington's diplomatic mission in Havana under the Carter administration,
recently told the AP. “It's stupid, it's counterproductive and there is no international support for it. ”¶ For 17
straight years, the 192-member U.N. General Assembly has overwhelmingly approved a non-binding resolution condemning the U.S. embargo.
Only the United States, Israel and Palau voted against the measure in October.¶ In the United States, the
political tide is also
turning against the embargo, which would require Congressional approval to lift.¶ Politicians have
traditionally pandered to the Cuban exile community in Florida as a key — even decisive — voting bloc, giving
Cuban-American hardliners essentially a veto over changes in U.S. policy. But these old guard, militant exiles, who generally
left Cuba shortly after the Castro brothers declared victory, have found their influence waning .¶ A
generational and demographic shift is under way in south Florida that changes the calculus.¶ A poll
conducted by Florida International University a month after the presidential election shows a sea change in Cuban-American opinion. The
poll revealed 55 percent of Cuban-American respondents favored ending the embargo, while 65
percent said they wanted Washington to re-establish diplomatic relations with Havana.¶ Lifting the embargo
would dramatically improve Washington's ties with the rest of Latin America.¶ On December 8, the heads of 15 Caribbean nations called on
Obama to rescind the embargo: “The Caribbean community hopes that the transformational change which is under way in the United States
will finally relegate that measure to history,” their statement said.¶ Then on December 17 in Brazil, the leaders of 33 Latin American countries,
including conservative allies of Washington like Colombia and Mexico, convened for another gathering and unanimously called on Obama to
drop the “unacceptable” embargo.¶ At that summit, Cuban President Raúl Castro even offered to release political prisoners as a gesture to pave
If Obama moves to lift the embargo, it would send a bold
statement that his administration is serious about writing a truly new chapter in U.S. relations with
Cuba — and the rest of Latin America.¶ Finally, he will have turned the page.
the way for talks between Havana and Washington.¶
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
134
Releasing trade restrictions solves for international perception – sets different
messages and opens up new possibilities
Zimmerman, Barnard College, 10
(Chelsea A., November 1, 2010, “Rethinking the Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend a
Broken Policy,” http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf ,
ACCESSED June 24, 2013, RJ)
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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Plan is key to LA cooperation and sends out a signal to the rest of the
hemisphere – key to opening political space in Cuba
CDA et al. No Date
(Center for Democracy in the Americas, the Latin America Working Group, the Lexington
Institute, the New America Foundation, and Washington Office on Latin America, No
Date ***uses evidence from 2009***,
http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/travel_talking_points.pdf , pg 4, RJ)
Allowing Americans to travel to Cuba will send an important signal to Latin ¶ America as a
whole. Currently every nation in the hemisphere - except the U.S. - ¶ has full diplomatic
relations with Havana. An end to the travel ban would signal a ¶ shift in the U.S. approach to
Cuba and demonstrate to our democratic allies in the ¶ region that we are respecting their
concerns while continuing to adhere to our goals ¶ for opening political space in Cuba. ¶ •
Most other governments have normal diplomatic relations with Cuba, engage with ¶
Cuba in other multi-lateral bodies, address concerns about human rights in the ¶ context
of ongoing dialogue, and place no limitations on the right of their citizens ¶ to travel to
Cuba. ¶ • At a December 2008 summit in Rio De Janeiro, the leaders of every Latin ¶
American country called on the U.S. to end the embargo against Cuba. An ¶ end to the
ban on travel would be a modest step that would respond to the calls of ¶ our friends in the
hemisphere. ¶ • In an historic agreement at the General Assembly of the Organization of ¶
American States (OAS) in San Pedro Sula, Honduras on June 2, 2009, foreign ¶ ministers
agreed by consensus to end Cuba’s suspension from the body, imposed ¶ in 1962 at the
height of the Cold War. After rounds of tough negotiations, the ¶ U.S. agreed to the
language, showing flexibility and a willingness to listen to ¶ regional partners. The final
statement set no preconditions, but rather ended the ¶ suspension on Cuba and
proposed a mechanism for discussion with Cuba if it ¶ requests re-admission.
135
136
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Solvency – Alliances
Latin American neoliberal reform is not due to U.S. intervention but to the reality that
free markets present the only viable economic system. The status quo provides Cuba
with a scapegoat, shielding Cuba from any true reform. Engagement solves
Vasquez & Rodriguez, director and assistant director of the project on human liberty
@ The CATO Institute, NDG
(Ian, L. Jacobo, The CATO Institute, originally from the Journal of Commerce, NDG,
“Trade Embargo In and Castro Out”,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trade-embargo-castro-out, 6/23/13,
PD)
But the revolution in democratic capitalism that has swept the Western Hemisphere has had little to
do with Washington’s efforts to export democracy. Rather, it has had to do with Latin America’s hardearned realization that the free-enterprise system is the only system capable of providing selfsustaining growth and increasing prosperity. Even though Cuba—unlike other communist countries,
such as China or Vietnam, with which the United States actively trades— has not undertaken
meaningful market reforms, an open U.S. trade policy is more likely to subvert its system than is an
embargo. Proponents of the Cuban embargo vastly underestimate the extent to which increased
foreign trade and investment can undermine Cuban communism even if that business is conducted
with state entities. Cuban officials appear to be well aware of the danger. For example, Cuba’s
opening of its tourism industry to foreign investment has been accompanied by measures that restrict
ordinary Cubans from visiting foreign hotels and tourist facilities. As a result, Cubans have come to
resent their government for what has become known as “tourism apartheid.” In recent years, Cuban
officials have also issued increasing warnings against corruption, indicating the regime’s fear that
unofficial business dealings, especially with foreigners, may weaken allegiance to the government and
even create vested interests that favor more extensive market openings. Further undercutting the
regime’s authority is the widespread dollar economy that has emerged as a consequence of the
foreign presence and remittances from abroad (those from the United States now banned by the
Helms-Burton bill). The dollarization of the Cuban economy—which the Cuban government has been
forced to legalize as a result of its inability to control it—has essentially eliminated the regime’s
authority to dictate the country’s monetary policy. Replacing the all-encompassing state with one that
allows greater space for voluntary interaction requires strengthening elements of civil society, that is,
groups not dependent on the state. That development is more likely to come about in an environment
of increased interaction with outside groups than in an environment of isolation and state control.
Supporters of the embargo casually assume that Castro wants an end to the embargo because he
believes that step would solve his economic problems. Despite his rhetoric, Castro more likely fears the
lifting of the U.S. sanctions. It is difficult to believe, for example, that he did not calculate a strong U.S.
response when he ordered the attack on two planes flown by Cuban-Americans in early 1996. But as
long as Castro can point to the United States as an external enemy, he will be successful in barring
dissent, justifying control over the economy, and stirring up nationalist and anti-U.S. sentiments in
Cuba. It is time for Washington to stop playing into Castro’s hands and instead pull the rug out from
under him by ending the embargo.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
137
The embargo encourages Cuban relations with U.S. adversaries; lifting sanctions key
to pushing the neoliberal agenda
Pelvert, Writer for the Department of the Navy, ‘02
(Karl, Department of the Navy, 3/16/02, “Cuban Economic Sanctions: The Time Has
Come to Lift Them and Move Forward”, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA401683, 6/23/13, PD)
The expected end state for the US is a democratic Cuba with or without Castro. The means, the
application of US economic power against Cuba must aim toward this goal. The ways, the use of
embargoes and trade sanctions have clearly failed to achieve this desired end state. Any national
security concerns certainly must be weighed carefully before changing the policy. Normal relations with
Cuba could serve as a tool to minimize the growth of unchallenged influence of the PRC and Russia in
Cuba. The existing sanctions should be ended as they lack support from the international community
and have not altered the Cuban government's undesirable pattern of behavior. Bringing Cuba into the
world economy would encourage it to comply with the rules set down by organizations such as the
World Trade Organization and improve the standard of living for the Cubans as a whole. There was a
similar discussion regarding the PRC and they certainly pose a greater potential threat to our national
security than Cuba. Since the current policy is not achieving the desired end state it is time and
appropriate to change the approach even if there is some risk.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Science Diplomacy**
138
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
139
Module – Science Diplomacy
The embargo hinders science diplomacy – lifting it encourages collaboration that solve
for relations and other environmental impacts
Pastrana et al., Sergio Jorge Pastrana is the Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba,
Michael T. Clegg is the Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Donald Bren
Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences,
University of California, Irvine. 08
(Sergio Jorge, Michael T. Clegg, Science AAAS October 2008, “U.S. – Cuban Scientific Relations,” Vol. 322
no. 5900 p. 345, ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)
In a few years, the two oldest national academies of science in the world outside of Europe—those of
the United States and Cuba—will celebrate their 150th anniversaries. Yet despite the proximity of both
nations and many common scientific interests, the U.S. embargo on exchanges with Cuba, which began
in 1961 and is now based on the 1996 U.S. Helms-Burton Act and subsequent regulations, has largely
blocked scientific exchange. It's time to establish a new scientific relationship, not only to address
shared challenges in health, climate, agriculture, and energy, but also to start building a framework
for expanded cooperation. Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation deprive both research
communities of opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the hemisphere,
particularly in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation,
vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research facilities
that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific community could
benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba typically sits in the path of
hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great destruction, as was the case with Hurricane
Katrina and again last month with Hurricane Ike. Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to
protect threatened populations and minimize damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike
when it struck Cuba, there was less loss of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it
later struck Texas as a category 2 hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody.
Another major example where scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on
tropical diseases, such as dengue fever. This viral disease is epidemic throughout the tropics, notably in
the Americas, and one of the first recorded outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia in the 18th century.
Today, one of the world's most outstanding research centers dedicated to dengue fever is in Cuba,
and although it actively cooperates with Latin America and Africa, there is almost no interaction with
U.S. scientists. Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S. mainland, and sharing knowledge resources
to counter outbreaks of the disease would be an investment in the health security of both peoples.
Cuba has also made important strides in biotechnology, including the production of several important
vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields,
ranging from drug addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban scientists are
engaged in research cooperation with many countries, including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico,
China, and India. Yet there is no program of cooperation with any U.S. research institution. The value
system of science—openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for evidence—provides
a framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based approaches that cross from
science into the social, economic, and political arenas. Beyond allowing for the mutual leveraging of
knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build important cultural and social links among
peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report argues that the United States needs to revamp
its engagement with Latin America because it is no longer the only significant force in this
hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba, including the imposition of trade
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
140
limitations that extend into scientific relations, continue to undermine U.S. standing in the entire
region, especially because neither Cuba nor any other Latin American country imposes such
restrictions. As a start, we urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by
scientists, as dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded
so as to allow direct cooperation in research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased scientific
exchanges. Allowing scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in science, it may well
favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human well-being. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has
hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our mutual anniversaries by starting a new
era of scientific cooperation.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
141
Ext – Embargo Solves
The embargo hinders science diplomacy – lifting it encourages collaboration that solve
for relations and other environmental impacts
Pastrana et al., Sergio Jorge Pastrana is the Foreign Secretary of the Academia de Ciencias de Cuba,
Michael T. Clegg is the Foreign Secretary of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Donald Bren
Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the School of Biological Sciences,
University of California, Irvine. 08
(Sergio Jorge, Michael T. Clegg, Science AAAS October 2008, “U.S. – Cuban Scientific Relations,” Vol. 322
no. 5900 p. 345, ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)
In a few years, the two oldest national academies of science in the world outside of Europe—those of
the United States and Cuba—will celebrate their 150th anniversaries. Yet despite the proximity of both
nations and many common scientific interests, the U.S. embargo on exchanges with Cuba, which began
in 1961 and is now based on the 1996 U.S. Helms-Burton Act and subsequent regulations, has largely
blocked scientific exchange. It's time to establish a new scientific relationship, not only to address
shared challenges in health, climate, agriculture, and energy, but also to start building a framework
for expanded cooperation. Restrictions on U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation deprive both research
communities of opportunities that could benefit our societies, as well as others in the hemisphere,
particularly in the Caribbean. Cuba is scientifically proficient in disaster management and mitigation,
vaccine production, and epidemiology. Cuban scientists could benefit from access to research facilities
that are beyond the capabilities of any developing country, and the U.S. scientific community could
benefit from high-quality science being done in Cuba. For example, Cuba typically sits in the path of
hurricanes bound for the U.S. mainland that create great destruction, as was the case with Hurricane
Katrina and again last month with Hurricane Ike. Cuban scientists and engineers have learned how to
protect threatened populations and minimize damage. Despite the category 3 rating of Hurricane Ike
when it struck Cuba, there was less loss of life after a 3-day pounding than that which occurred when it
later struck Texas as a category 2 hurricane. Sharing knowledge in this area would benefit everybody.
Another major example where scientific cooperation could save lives is Cuba's extensive research on
tropical diseases, such as dengue fever. This viral disease is epidemic throughout the tropics, notably in
the Americas, and one of the first recorded outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia in the 18th century.
Today, one of the world's most outstanding research centers dedicated to dengue fever is in Cuba,
and although it actively cooperates with Latin America and Africa, there is almost no interaction with
U.S. scientists. Dengue fever presents a threat to the U.S. mainland, and sharing knowledge resources
to counter outbreaks of the disease would be an investment in the health security of both peoples.
Cuba has also made important strides in biotechnology, including the production of several important
vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, and its research interests continue to expand in diverse fields,
ranging from drug addiction treatment to the preservation of biodiversity. Cuban scientists are
engaged in research cooperation with many countries, including the United Kingdom, Brazil, Mexico,
China, and India. Yet there is no program of cooperation with any U.S. research institution. The value
system of science—openness, shared communication, integrity, and a respect for evidence—provides
a framework for open engagement and could encourage evidence-based approaches that cross from
science into the social, economic, and political arenas. Beyond allowing for the mutual leveraging of
knowledge and resources, scientific contacts could build important cultural and social links among
peoples. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report argues that the United States needs to revamp
its engagement with Latin America because it is no longer the only significant force in this
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
142
hemisphere. U.S. policies that are seen as unfairly penalizing Cuba, including the imposition of trade
limitations that extend into scientific relations, continue to undermine U.S. standing in the entire
region, especially because neither Cuba nor any other Latin American country imposes such
restrictions. As a start, we urge that the present license that permits restricted travel to Cuba by
scientists, as dictated by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, be expanded
so as to allow direct cooperation in research. At the same time, Cuba should favor increased scientific
exchanges. Allowing scientists to fully engage will not only support progress in science, it may well
favor positive interactions elsewhere to promote human well-being. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has
hindered exchanges for the past 50 years. Let us celebrate our mutual anniversaries by starting a new
era of scientific cooperation.
Lifting the embargo is key to science diplomacy – similar to the fall of the Berlin Wall
Cuba Headlines 9
(“Science at the leading edge versus embargo”,
http://www.cubaheadlines.com/2009/11/13/18622/science_leading_edge_versus_embargo.html,
Accessed 6/30/13, AZ)
Cuba already has normal diplomatic and economic relations with most other nations but with the
USA. ¶ Those of you who were too young to experience the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 may soon
witness the metaphorical crumbling of another diplomatic wall: the U.S. embargo on Cuba. This time
science may be at the leading edge.¶ As Elisabeth Pain and Kate Travis described last week in Science
Careers, the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago opened up many opportunities for scientists in Eastern
Europe to travel to the West for study and research. In Cuba, the United States is playing catch-up,
since Cuba already has normal diplomatic and economic relations with most other nations. But right
now there's a delegation of American scientists and policy experts visiting Cuba, as reported last night
by our colleagues at Science Insider. The goal of the U.S. delegation, says a news release from AAAS
(publisher of Science Careers) is "to explore research issues and multilateral science venues that might
be conducive to U.S.-Cuba scientific cooperation."¶ While many such delegations are long on rhetoric
and short on action, this group of visitors may benefit from something of a tropical thaw. ¶ Steve
Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation and one of the
delegation members, says in a Washington Note blog post that the atmospherics between the U.S.
Interests Section in Havana -- the U.S. does not have an official Embassy there -- and the Cuban
government have improved tangibly. "There is a marked, highly noticeable change in the attitude and
'posture' of the Cuban government towards US State Department and other US officials assigned to ¶ the
embassy-lite operation in Havana," he says. "Cuban authorities, apparently, are engaging the U.S.
government personnel constructively -- and this just didn't happen before" This is one of several
indicators Clemons found pointing toward more bi-lateral cooperation.¶ Clemons separately highlights
Cuba's use of its medical schools and staff as diplomatic tools, which he feels could serve as a
template for exchanges between Cuba and the United States. ¶ As a result of those early contacts,
Pakistan has since established diplomatic relations with Cuba. Today, Pakistani students attend the Latin
American School of Medicine in Havana.¶ Cuba in recent years sent teams of its doctors to help local
populations recover from natural disasters in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Impact – Laundry List
Science diplomacy is good – key to solve disease spread and agriculture shortages
Federoff, KAUST professor of life sciences and Biotechnology, ’08.
(Nina, 4/2/13, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG110hhrg41470.htm, Accessed 6/25/13, ARH)
The Department of State has S&T diplomatic strategies related to a
number of international issues, including water management, energy,
agriculture, natural resource management, infectious diseases and
biodiversity. It also promotes international scientific cooperation
through bilateral and multilateral science and technology agreements to
``promote the precepts of sustainable development, enhancement of the
role of women in science and society, science-based decision-making,
good governance, and global security more broadly.''
143
144
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Impact – Relations
Science diplomacy solves relations – creates cultural exchanges that spill over
Federoff, KAUST professor of life sciences and Biotechnology, ’08.
(Nina, 4/2/13, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG110hhrg41470.htm, Accessed 6/25/13, ARH)
Scientists have played an important role on the front-lines of U.S. diplomacy since the end of
World War II. They have been the enablers of larger international diplomacy efforts, from the
robust scientific exchange with China to renewed and strengthened relations with Egypt,
India, and Pakistan-all started with the peaceful beachhead of scientific diplomacy. For
instance, polls indicate that people in the Middle East generally view American S&T more
favorably than other aspects of our society. This approving attitude provides for favorable
forums to explain other aspects of American policies and actions. Our nation's citizens also
benefit directly from S&T cooperation, as it provides our scientists and engineers with greater
access to cutting-edge research and allows us to work across geographical boundaries to
solve global problems. In addition, globalization has amplified the worldwide competition for
ideas, science and engineering (S&E) talent, and leadership in turning new knowledge into
real-world applications. Many nations are accelerating their investments in research and
development, education, and infrastructure in order to drive sustained economic growth. To
continue being a global leader in S&T, we must ensure that we have access to discoveries being
made in every corner of the world. The National Science Foundation understands the global
nature of scientific discovery, and the international character of knowledge creation and
research activities are stressed in NSF's FY 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, Investing in America's
Future. For more than 55 years, NSF has connected S&E researchers and educators in
academic organizations, industry and informal science institutions, both nationally and
internationally, to leverage intellectual capabilities. NSF has strengthened the Nation's
collaborative advantage by leading or participating in key interagency initiatives as well as by
developing innovative collaborations across all S&E disciplines.
Science Diplomacy Good—Relations and Econ Prove
Sutcu, Author for the Journal of Social Sciences, ’12.
(Guliz, 1/14/12, http://sbd.ogu.edu.tr/makaleler/13_2_Makale_1.pdf, Accessed 6/26/13,
ARH)
The second dimension of science diplomacy, diplomacy for science, serves for establishing
international scientific and technological cooperation through a much easier way. This
dimension of science diplomacy provides researchers with many opportunities to establish
new partnerships and to carry out projects with high budget and developed infrastructure. It
allows for the creation of new networks among foreign researchers and research institutions.
In order to create new partnerships, scientific community is in the need of working
communication channels and diplo- macy facilitates their getting into interaction with each
other through several instruments, such as contract negotiations or bilateral and multilateral
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
145
S&T agreements for joint research projects In addition to the benefits of diplomacy for science
for the scientific community, states get various advantages from the execution of diplomacy
for science as well. Partnerships established through science diplomacy efforts enable states
having access to “researchers, research findings and research facilities, natural resources, and
capital”. This contributes to the development of their science and technology since they get
the opportunity of following international research and development activities, learning about
new technologies, having access to new markets, and attracting new brains. Moreover,
establishing scientific relationships with different nations allows states to ameliorate their
image due to their success in science and technology. As the states promote their
achievements in research and development, they become centers of attraction for
international scientific community and it leads to new incen- tives among states to
cooperate. With the awareness of the abundance of their gains through having access to
others’ research and development capabilities and through promoting a positive image based
on its level of development in science and technology, states get motivated to estab- lish
scientific and technological relationships
Increasing science diplomacy is key to international non-proliferation efforts – solves
escalating nuclear wars
Dickson, Director of SciDev.Net, 10
(David, Director, SciDev.Net, 7 May 2010, “Nuclear disarmament is top priority for science diplomacy”,
http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/nuclear-disarmament-is-top-priority-for-science-diplomacy.html, 7/28/10, 6-31-13)
The political climate is ripe for a new push to eliminate nuclear weapons; scientists can boost its chance of
success. Earlier this year, US satellites detected the first plume of steam from a nuclear reactor in Pakistan that
has been built to produce fuel for nuclear bombs, confirming the country's desire to strengthen its status as a
nuclear power. The observation — coming shortly before this month's review conference in New York of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — is further evidence that the unregulated spread of nuclear technology
remains closely linked to the dangers of nuclear conflict. The good news is that US President Barack Obama
seems determined to make eliminating nuclear weapons a top priority . Indeed, last month he invited 47 heads of
state to an unprecedented summit in Washington to promote disarmament and agree strategies to prevent
nuclear terrorism and safeguard nuclear material. But the news from Pakistan, together with continued
disagreement on how best to tackle other emerging nuclear states such as Iran and North Korea, illustrates how
far there is to go — and the political hurdles that must still be scaled — before this goal is achieved. New hope Still,
there is a sense of optimism for this year's review conference that was missing from the last meeting in 2005.
Then, the aggressive stance taken by the Bush administration — describing North Korea as part of an "axis of evil",
for example — doomed the discussions to stalemate. This time round, the prospects for agreement are
significantly higher. Not only has Obama adopted a more moderate attitude towards international affairs in
general, but he has already made significant achievements on the nuclear front. Last month, for example, Russia
and the United States announced an arms control agreement under which both will significantly reduce their
nuclear arsenals. And since then, Obama has revised his nuclear policy to state, for the first time, that non-nuclear
states that have signed the NPT will never be targets of US nuclear weapons. Both agreements could have gone
further. Some in Obama's administration wanted him to take the further step of banning the use of nuclear
weapons against any non-nuclear threat or attack. And despite the new cuts, both Russia and the United States
will still own enough nuclear weapons to destroy human life many times over. But the recent moves have
nonetheless created a political climate in which significant agreement, at least between nuclear weapons states,
looks more realistic than it did five years ago. There are even signs that the United States could eventually ratify
the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the next major step towards global nuclear disarmament. Need for
vigilance The reasons for optimism are not restricted to the shift in the US position. Equally influential has been
a growing awareness within the developed and developing worlds of the threats of nuclear terrorism and the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
146
need to improve protection of nuclear materials. Eighteen months ago, for example, an armed group was caught
breaking into a nuclear facility in South Africa in an apparent attempt to steal weapons-grade uranium that has
been stored at the site since the early 1990s, under international supervision. The incident provides a stark
reminder of the need for continued and effective vigilance. This need will increase as more developing countries
turn towards nuclear power as a source of affordable energy — a trend that will be reinforced by international
efforts to promote renewable energy as a strategy for tackling climate change. But the danger is that US-led
initiatives will, with some justification, be seen as little more than attempts to defend American interests,
influenced as much by political relationships as by a genuine desire for nuclear disarmament. For example, the nuclear
cooperation deal between the United States and India that entered force in 2008 has been cited by the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace as an example of putting diplomatic and commercial interests ahead of nonproliferation responsibilities and was criticised for exacerbating nuclear tensions in South Asia. Scientists,
diplomats or both? The only solution is for the developing world to accept that international nuclear nonproliferation is in its own interests — the only way to prevent regional conflicts escalating into nuclear
exchanges. The scientific community has an important role to play in this process by explaining the threat posed
by even relatively small nuclear weapons, and advising on how to develop safeguards without overly restricting the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Scientists have already shown their worth when they kept communication channels open
between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Pugwash Conferences on Science and World
Affairs were instrumental to such 'science diplomacy' and it can be no coincidence that the approach is rapidly gaining
favour in Washington, where John Holdren, who once headed Pugwash, is Obama's science and technology advisor. If such
diplomacy, on the control of nuclear weapons or other scientific issues, is driven by the political and commercial interests of the
developed world, it will remain suspect and doomed to fail. But if it can be truly international, the chances of success
are much higher. Reaching a global agreement on the steps needed to eliminate nuclear weapons from the
world would be a good place to start.
147
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Biotech**
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
148
UQ – Cuban Biotech High
Bio-Tech is Booming in Cuba – High Output and Development Rates
Evenson, JSD, 2007
(Debra, Fall, Cuba's Biotechnology Revolution, MEDICC Review, Volume: 9 No.1, MK)
As a result of accelerated training of scientists and engineers ¶ beginning in the 1960s and substantial
state investment since ¶ the 1980s calculated at about USD$1 billion,[1] Cuban biotechnology has
become a major player in the Cuban economy ¶ and successfully established its place in the global
market. ¶ According to a World Bank report, Cuba has the capacity to ¶ meet about 80% of its
domestic demand for prescription drugs ¶ and had achieved annual biotech exports of around
USD$100 ¶ million in the 1990s.[2] A recent Ernst & Young report puts ¶ exports of biotech products at
USD$300 million in 2005.[3] ¶ Behind the commercial success of Cuba’s biotech industry are ¶ several
innovative vaccines, including the recombinant hepatitis ¶ B vaccine, which received pre-qualification
from the World ¶ Health Organization (WHO) in 2001 for international use and is ¶ now sold in more than
30 countries worldwide. Cuba also developed the world’s first effective vaccine against meningitis B,
VAMENGOC-BC®¶ , which is now exported primarily to Latin America, including Brazil, Argentina,
Colombia, Venezuela, and Uruguay. Based on this successful ¶ experience, in 1999, the British ¶ company
Glaxo-Smith-Kline entered into a licensing agreement ¶ with Cuba’s Finlay Institute to develop a
meningococcal B vaccine ¶ using Cuban technology, to be ¶ distributed in Europe and North ¶ America. ¶
International acceptance of Cuban ¶ biotech is growing, with products ¶ now registered in more than 55 ¶
countries, principally in the Global ¶ South. A deep project pipeline, ¶ including innovative therapeutic
cancer vaccines – currently in ¶ clinical trials in Cuba, Canada, and elsewhere – mean the country’s
market share is likely to keep growing. By 2004, Cuba had ¶ registered some 100 patents and applied for
another 500 patents throughout the world.[4] Cuba’s safety and research standards are reported to
“[be] equal or even exceed those of the ¶ US Federal Drug Administration and the European
Union.”[5]
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
149
UQ – Expanding Now
Cuban biotech is high now – their sector is booming
NTI, World Relations Institute, 2013
(2/13, NTI, “Cuba: Biological”, http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/cuba/biological/, 6/27/13,
MK)
Cuban scientists pursue many research interests as they attempt to address the technological needs
and desires of those both within and outside of Cuba. In the past two decades, Cuba has successfully
developed a meningitis B vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine,[13] cattle tick "vaccine," and monoclonal
antibodies for kidney transplants. Cuba has also developed products through CIGB including vaccines for
pneumonia, diphtheria, anemia, and various other diseases.[14] Scientific institutions also have
conducted trials involving epidermal growth factor; cancer, AIDS, and hepatitis C vaccines; and pestresistant sugar cane. These activities clearly demonstrate Cuba's versatility in biotechnology research
and production.[15] As of February 2009, CIGB is "currently working on 20 new projects that include the
development of 40 products to treat several diseases." [16]¶ As the Cuban biotechnology industry has
expanded over the past decade, the nation has become a major source of both medicine and scientific
technology to the developing world. Cuba currently has technology trade agreements with at least 14
countries, with negotiations for trade underway with several other states. In the past decade, Iran,
China, India, Algeria, Brazil, and Venezuela have become the main recipients of Cuban technology.[17]
Cuba has also helped to initiate joint biotechnology enterprises within developing countries,
specifically Iran, China, and India, transferring technology from several different scientific institutions,
including the CIGB and the Center for Molecular Immunology.[18] Cuba has attempted to repay parts of
its debt to Brazil, Columbia, and Venezuela by exporting pharmaceutical products to these countries.
Cuban Biotech Thriving – Embargo Prevents It From Reaching U.S.
Randal, Health Policy Writer, 2000
(Judith, 2000, “Despite Embargo, Biotechnology in Cuba Thrives”, Oxford Journals,
Volume 92, Issue 13, p.1034-1037, MK)
Among those accomplishments is an extensive array of recombinant proteins, synthetic peptides,
monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) and antigens that have enabled their country to routinely screen its
blood and blood products for AIDS and viral hepatitis, its pregnant women for neural tube defects in
the fetus, and its newborns for certain biochemical birth defects. On the list of home-grown
recombinants, too, are interleukin-2 (for cancer treatment), alpha and gamma interferon, streptokinase,
erythropoietin, and several livestock and human vaccines, including a hepatitis B vaccine that has
virtually eliminated the disease in Cuba.¶ ¶ Also in the Cuban “biotech” pipeline, although strictly
investigational to date, are recombinant vaccines against AIDS, hepatitis C, and dengue fever. (Dengue,
common in much of the tropics, is a debilitating mosquito-borne illness for which there is only
supportive treatment. Dengue fever can be life-threatening and even fatal.)¶ ¶ And while Cuba has yet to
clone animals, Havana’s Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (Spanish acronym CIGB) is
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
150
proud of the tilapia (an edible freshwater fish) that it has fitted with extra growth hormone genes.
Indeed, the CIGB’s Jorge Gavilondo, Ph.D., and his colleagues there envision a day when transgenic
plants, or more specifically, their seeds, will be the repositories of key antibodies and are working
toward making that a reality.¶ ¶ Clinical Research¶ ¶ Moreover, to talk with Pedro Lopez Saura, M.D.,
Ph.D., is to learn how clinical research is done in Cuba. As vice-director for regulatory issues and clinical
trials at CIGB, he speaks knowledgeably of such matters as hospital institutional review boards, peer
review, informed consent for patients participating in trials, and other regulatory hoops that candidate
therapies must jump through in his country just as they do in larger countries with a modern research
enterprise. And when multicenter trials are called for, Cuba has a coordinating center that sets them up
and manages them. “It’s the equivalent of a CRO (contract research organization) in the United States,”
Lopez Saura explained.¶ ¶ Meanwhile, together with seeking tourists—mainly from Canada and Europe—
Cuba has been turning to biotechnology to earn foreign exchange. A part of its R&D effort, for
example, is to develop generic versions of prescription drugs that can be sold to “niche markets”—
principally poor countries—as soon as the patents on them expire. (Cuba, unlike China, honors foreign
patents and has its own Office for Intellectual Property.) The government plows the profits from this and
other overseas sales of its biotechnology back into the R&D centers.¶ ¶ But by no means can every
product of Cuban R&D be called “me-too,” as a vaccine from the Finlay Institute in Havana illustrates. It
is the world’s only type B bacterial—i.e., meningococcal—meningitis vaccine, and since its introduction
in 1989 (originally for domestic use), it has earned Cuba about US $40 million from sales to other
countries, principally Brazil. Last year, this vaccine was licensed to SmithKline Beecham, which means
that it may eventually also be available in the United States.¶ ¶ The license, however, required special
dispensations from the U.S. government, which are hard to get. At one point, for example, Merck & Co.
officials met with President Fidel Castro to discuss AIDS research collaborations with Cuban scientists
but dropped the idea when they found too many U.S. legal complications in the way.¶ ¶ The effect of U.S.
sanctions on Cuban biotechnology, in fact, can be more than bilateral. The country’s inability to buy
directly from U.S. suppliers, for example, has driven some of its investigators to spend time in the
better-equipped labs of European colleagues or to collaborate with them from afar, creating
considerable sympathy for the Cubans’ plight in the process.¶ ¶ Another example is the Center for
Molecular Immunology (Spanish acronym CIM), a part of Havana’s Western Scientific Pole and York
Medical Inc. of Mississauga, Ontario, its joint venture partner. The center specializes in oncology and is
headed by Augustin Lage, M.D., Ph.D., whose brother Carlos Lage is President Castro’s finance minister.
CIM has in its R&D portfolio (among other things): MAbs—some radioactively labeled—that target one
type of cancer or another for purposes of diagnosis or therapy; and a doubly recombinant vaccine that
has shown promise for controlling advanced non-small cell lung cancer and may be useful for certain
other cancers as well. (See story below.) Under York Medical’s aegis, the vaccine and three versions of a
CIM MAb are in clinical trials in Canada.¶ ¶ David Allan, York Medical’s chief executive officer, is upbeat
about these products—not least because Canadian regulatory authorities were sufficiently impressed by
their performance in Cuba to issue the approvals that were a prerequisite for the trials. But Allan also
worries about the effect of the U.S. embargo on things Cuban no matter their benefits. He fears that
“no drug firm doing business in the United States—and that includes multinationals—will risk trying to
commercialize products that originated in Havana.”¶ ¶ In sum, for all the prestige that scientists in Cuba
enjoy at home, it is difficult for them to find a place in the international sun
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
151
Link – Skilled Workers
Lift Would Bring Advanced Bio-tech and Skilled Workers – Encourages International
Spread
Fineman, Reporter at L.A. Times, 1998
(Mark, 8/14, L.A. Times, “Little-known biotech industry vital to Cuba's economic
future”, 6/24/13, MK)
When Franklin Sotolongo injected himself with the vial of experimental liquid that day in 1985, it was
one of the most emotional moments of his life.¶ Sotolongo was leading a small team of Cuban scientists
struggling to save their nation from an epidemic of group-B meningitis. Hundreds of children were
dying, and there was neither a cure nor a vaccine -- not only on their island, but anywhere.¶ They
studied the research of scientists in Europe and the United States, and, after years of testing in monkeys
and mice, Sotolongo and his team had what they thought was a breakthrough. ``We tried it on ourselves
first,'' he says. ``We were sure there was nothing to worry about, but we felt the first risks should be
ours.''¶ Thirteen years later, group-B meningitis has been virtually wiped out. Cuba and Sotolongo's
government institute have the patent on a group-B meningococcal vaccine so effective that
international pharmaceutical giant SmithKline Beecham is appealing to Washington to waive its trade
embargo of Cuba to permit its own trials of the vaccine.¶ But the vaccine is just one of many unheralded
breakthroughs in Cuba's little-known yet highly advanced biotechnology industry -- one that has, with
its infusion of foreign exchange, helped the country weather the collapse of its Soviet benefactor.¶ Fastgrowing fish¶ Unencumbered by competing interests in a one-party state that views biotech as a key to
its medical and economic survival, Cuban scientists have developed an array of new vaccines and drugs
that are at the leading edge of biotech research.¶ One team is hard at work in the first phase of human
clinical trials of a potential AIDS vaccine that scientists hope will be ready for commercial use in two
years. Another is perfecting what would be the world's first effective vaccine against cholera -- a
disease that doesn't even exist in Cuba. Other scientists have used human placenta to develop a cream
that effectively reverses the effects of certain skin diseases. And still another has successfully cloned a
new species of fish that grows twice as fast as the natural variety.¶ That ``transgenetic'' fish, whose
growth genes have been modified by Cuban scientists will be Cuba's centerpiece at a five-day
international conference it is sponsoring in Havana in November.¶ But Cuba's multimillion-dollar
biotechnology industry is not just for show or its own medical needs. Already, the Cuban government
successfully has marketed its group-B meningococcal vaccine in Argentina, Brazil and Colombia, where
sales have helped Cuba repay its debts to those countries.¶ $290 million in sales¶ Heber Biotech S.A., a
semi-private company created by the Cuban government in 1991 to market its high-tech
pharmaceuticals, is now selling products in 34 countries. Among them: an indigenously developed
interferon, a hepatitis B vaccine and an advanced streptokinase drug that destroys coronary clots.¶ With
annual sales as high as $290 million a year, Heber, Sotolongo's Finlay Institute and other centers in
Cuba's biotech industry now rank behind only tourism, nickel production and tobacco as the country's
largest export earner. And it is poised for even bigger growth in the years ahead.¶ The Finlay Institute's
high-tech Plant No. 3 is the cornerstone of that expansion effort. Packed with more than $100 million in
state-of-the-art imported equipment, the factory has the capacity to produce 100 million doses of
vaccines every year -- more than double what it has marketed in the past. And the institute has
prepared slick brochures and marketing campaigns to advertise its potential worldwide.¶ The
Biotechnology Havana '98 Transgenesis conference scheduled to open Nov. 16 is subtitled ``From the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
152
Laboratory to the Market,'' and it will include commercial endeavors once unthinkable in this
Communist state; exhibit space already is renting for $50 per square foot.¶ Medicines scarce¶ And Heber
Biotech, marketing itself under the slogan ``Approaching Horizons,'' now has offices or direct business
relations in more than 50 countries, and it boasts that its sales increased more than six-fold between
1992 and '96.¶ Through most of its 30-year history, Cuba's biotechnology research industry focused
almost entirely on preventing and curing diseases at home -- an island nation where medicines were
scarce, largely because of the United States' punishing trade embargo.¶ After the collapse of the Soviet
Union, however, Cuba lost billions of dollars that kept its socialist economy afloat. The government was
forced to inventory its state industries for potential exports to raise the money it needed to continue
subsidizing food and providing free education and health care. Its biotechnology industry emerged near
the top of the list.¶ In recent years, the government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in
biotech facilities and research. That has created something of a technology gap here: scientists using
advanced genetic techniques to clone fish in a land where the U.S. embargo has made antibiotics
scarce on hospital shelves and smoke-belching, '50s-vintage Chevys and Buicks commonplace on the
streets.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
153
Link – Plan Key Exports
Embargo Lift Equals Better Biotech – Leads to Legal Imports
CPAG, Center for National Policy, 2003
(“U.S. – Cuba Relations, Time for a New Approach”, pg. 12)
While internal failings and external pressures have kept Cuba’s economic¶ system from reaching even a
fraction of its potential, the country does offer¶ opportunities for U.S. exports and investment. Since
November 2001, Cuba¶ has purchased $125 million in food from U.S. producers and recently signed¶
contracts for an additional $95 million. Total food imports are currently¶ estimated at $1 billion per year.
As Cuba moves inevitably—albeit slowly¶ and fitfully—toward a more market-based economy, the size
of that market is ¶ likely to increase.¶ Cuba also exports a number of products that are otherwise
unavailable in the ¶ U.S. market or whose substitutes are lower in quality. Cuba’s biotechnology¶
industry, for example, has developed effective meningitis and hepatitis¶ vaccines to which Americans
have no legal access, while some of Cuba’s¶ more traditional exports, which have always enjoyed a
reputation for superior ¶ quality, also cannot legally be imported. ¶ Current policy excludes U.S.
businesses and individuals from virtually all¶ export and investment opportunities and gives other
countries a head start in¶ positioning themselves to take advantage of future ones. It prevents U.S.¶
consumers from purchasing products from Cuba. And it does not provide an ¶ effective mechanism for
the resolution of intellectual property disputes or¶ expropriated property claims.¶
154
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Cooperation Key
US-Cuban cooperation key to prevent disease – dengue fever proves
Boom, Director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, 12
(Brian M. Boom, September 2012, “Biodiversity without Borders: Advancing U.S.-Cuba Cooperation
through ¶ Environmental Research,” Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 3 (September 2012*). ¶
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders. Accessed June 24, 2013,
RJ)
Disease Vector Species: A good example of a shared disease vector is the Aedes ¶ aegypti mosquito.
This species is the principal vector for the viruses that cause ¶ dengue fever, a non-curable, sometimes
fatal disease in humans. In the Western ¶ Hemisphere, the disease is known to occur throughout much
of Latin America and ¶ the Caribbean, including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, but so far not in Cuba,
¶ and only rarely in the continental United States. But this situation could change. ¶ According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is evidence that ¶ this mosquito is constantly
responding and adapting to environmental changes. ¶ Cuba has one of the world’s best centers for
dengue research with knowledge ¶ about how the island stays dengue free.10 Yet, Cuba and the
United States are not ¶ working together on dengue, a shared and growing threat.¶ Both urgent
natural and man-made problems, such as hurricanes and oil spills, ¶ as well as more gradual, less
dramatic threats, such as habitat modification and ¶ pollution, threaten the native biodiversity shared by
Cuba and the United States. ¶ These threats are exacerbated by the lack of active, ongoing bilateral
scientific ¶ cooperation between Cuba and the United States in seeking solutions to such ¶ threats
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
155
Internal – Cuban BioTech Good
Cuba Has Great Bio-Tech – Largest Medicine Exporter in Latin America
Starr, Medical Writer, 2004
(Douglas, 12/1, NY Latino Journal, “The Cuban Bio-Tech Revolution”,
http://nylatinojournal.com/home/business_economics/med_biotech/the_cuban_biot
ech_revolution.html, 6/25/13, MK)
Today the country is the largest medicine exporter in Latin America and has more than 50 nations on
its client list. Cuban meds cost far less than their first-world counterparts, and Fidel Castro's
government has helped China, Malaysia, India, and Iran set up their own factories: "south-to-south
technology transfer." Yet at the same time as they were selling generics, the science-heroes of the
Cuban Revolution were inventing. Castro made biotechnology one of the building blocks of the
economy, and that has opened the door - just a crack - to intellectual property. To date his researchers
have been granted more than 100 patents, 26 of them in the US. Now they’re setting their sights on the
markets of the West. After the 1959 revolution, Cuba made it a priority to find new ways to care for a
poor population; part of the solution was training doctors and researchers. Cuba currently exports
thousands of doctors to impoverished countries and caters to an influx of "health tourists," mostly rich
Africans and Latin Americans seeking cheap, high-quality care.¶ ¶ In 1981, half a dozen Cuban scientists
went to Finland to learn to synthesize the virus-fighting protein interferon. Castro sent them with
money for a shopping spree. They brought back a lab’s worth of equipment and took over a white
stucco guesthouse in the Havana suburbs; a decade later, Cuba was the pharmacy of the Soviet bloc and
third world. Most trade took the form of barter, and development experts estimate that by the early
"90s the business was worth more than $700 million a year.¶ ¶ "And then, almost from a Monday to a
Tuesday," says Carlos Borroto, vice director of the Cuban Center for Genetic Engineering and
Biotechnology (known as CIGB in Spanish), "the Soviet Union collapsed." Cuba lost all its credit, 80
percent of its foreign trade, and a third of its food imports.¶ ¶ Faced with economic calamity, Castro did
something remarkable: He poured hundreds of millions of dollars into pharmaceuticals. No one knows
how - Cuba’s economy, with its secrecy and centralized structure, defies market analysis. One
beneficiary was Concepcion Campa Huergo, president and director general of the Finlay Institute, a
vaccine lab in Havana.¶ ¶ She developed the world's first meningitis B vaccine, testing it by injecting
herself and her children before giving it to volunteers. "I remember one day telling Fidel that we needed
a new ultracentrifuge, which costs about $70, 000," Campa says. "After five minutes of listening he said,
'No. You’ll need 10.'"¶ ¶ Campa and her colleagues still have to scrimp and scrounge. Labs are filled with
gear from Europe, Japan, and Brazil. The occasional device from the US has traveled the "long way
around" - through so many middlemen (and markups) that it may well have circled the globe.¶ Scientists
develop their own reagents, enzymes, tissue cultures, and virus lines. Each institute has its own
production facility and conducts clinical trials through the state-run hospital system.
156
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Impact – Vaccines
Utilization of biotechnology is extremely vital for the United States market for further
technological advancements and development of vaccines
Caraway, B.A. in Latin American Science, 3
(Rose Caraway, “Post Embargo Cuba: Economic Implications and the Future of
Socialism”, December 2003,
http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/etext/llilas/ilassa/2004/caraway.pdf)
The area of biotechnology has the potential to be extremely profitable for Cuba both financially as
well as socially, in terms of providing high quality medicines and vaccines for its citizens as well as the
global market. In addition, it is one of Cuba’s few export sectors that truly involves intense utilization of its
skilled labor force—extremely vital in producing more diverse, technologically advanced products for
export. Biotechnology scientists from around the world, including the United States, are exchanging
vital information with Cuba on the engineering of plants and animals for drug production. The island
has been particularly successful with the development of vaccines, such as one fore hepatitis, and it hopes to
develop an effective HIV vaccine as well as anti-HIV medications. Cuba is presently in alliance with India and other
Southeastern Asian countries, and has joint ventures with Japan and Canada in pursuit of
biotechnology development and sales.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
157
Impact – Transhumanism
Removing Embargo Essential for Advancement – Allows US-restricted Drugs, Biotech
and Trans humanist Opportunities
Sirius, writer for h+magazine, a transhumanist site, and popular interviewer, 10 (R.U., 10/21/10,
hplusmagazine.com, “Is the US Cuba Embargo Blocking the Future? An Interveiw with Alex Lightman”,
http://hplusmagazine.com/2010/11/21/us-cuba-embargo-blocking-future-interview-alex-lightman/,
6/24/13, AC)
It’s widely known in futurist circles that Alex Lightman — the former Executive Director of Humanity+,
author of Brave New Unwired World: the Digital Big Bang and the Infinite Internet , and H+ magazine
contributor — has been obsessing over ending the US embargo against Cuba. He has now released a
book, Reconciliation: 78 Reasons to End the U.S. Embargo of Cuba that employs economic and legal
facts to make a cogent argument against the embargo. I interviewed him via email about his new book.
H+: There are a thousand issues in the world. Why should Humanity+ types be particularly interested in
the issue of U.S./Cuban reconciliation? Alex Lightman: I can give you five good reasons to start with.
First, Cuba has over forty medical treatments that the rest of the world can get, but Americans cannot.
By allowing the US embargo to continue, transhumanists and anyone who wants the best possible
medical care — not the best politically mediated medical care, — are being deprived of potential
treatments. Second, Cuba is able to match most US health statistics, including lifespan, at a cost of
$200 per person per year, vs. over $7,000 for each American… jumping to $15,000 a year at 65. A core
transhumanist aspiration is to live longer, but a challenge to this is being able to afford the cost of life
extension. Cuba’s cost structure could have valuable lessons for us, or even could be a place that
Americans can visit for treatments (which are now all illegal). Third, Cuba’s system for biotechnology is
profoundly interesting and successful, and it behooves Americans to be able to visit and learn more
about it. Fourth, the US embargo of Cuba is now 50 years and one week old. Rebecca D. Costa, in her
book The Watchman’s Rattle, warns that societies that are unable to overcome gridlock, and postpone
their problems to the next generation, are societies eminently worthy of collapse. The US embargo of
Cuba has all the attributes that we would find shockingly obvious after reading the book. Fifth, US
reconciliation with Cuba is a relatively easy problem to solve. Transhumanists will want to be able to
use this resolution as a dry run for solving much tougher issues. H+: Hold on. Forty medical treatments
that are exclusive to Cuba… in a globalized world? Treatments for hepatitis B and C that we don’t have
(as per your book)? This doesn’t make any sense on the face of it. Any treatments that work will get
noticed and distributed elsewhere. What treatments are you talking about? AL: RU, the whole point of
the embargo is to prevent Cuba from benefiting from globalization, which is another way of saying
Americanization. What aspects of globalization are not aspects of US finance, commerce, markets,
technology, culture? Treatments will not be distributed if, like the brother who brought a hepatitis
treatment back to his dying brother, saved him, and then faced prosecution under the Trading with the
Enemy Act that was created to prevent trading with our former enemy Germany (up to 10 years in jail
and $250,000 fine), which was to keep people in the US from distributing these treatments in the US.
The US accounts for almost half of drugs sales, and at much higher average cost. Even with an
amazingly incompetent marketing capability, Cuba exports over $400 million a year worth of drugs to
over 60 countries. A few of the highlights are products related to monoclonal antibodies, treatment
for esophageal and tongue cancer (because of widespread smoking of cigars), and Escozul (blue
scorpion venom from Guantanamo Bay area). H+: But can you document this at all? AL: Here.
“QUIMEFA’s enterprise production programme 2007-2012 includes 73 products of which 31 substitute
imports.” 73 minus 31 equals 42 products that are not substituting imports, but are exported because
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
158
they are unique. Domestic production concentrates on generic pharmaceuticals and vaccines.
Production is GMP compliant, and selected pharmaceuticals meet bioequivalence standards.
Economically, medical and pharmaceutical services remain priority export sectors. For more
background, check these: http://www.wsicubaproject.org/factbiotech.cfm
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/cuba.html H+: A vast majority of Americans are against the
embargo and even a small majority of Cuban Americans are now against it. Why do you think certain
political changes remain taboo long after the majority has moved on? AL: The vast majority of
Americans are against the embargo. However, even a majority of Cuban Americans in the US, in
Florida, even in Miami-Dade County are against the US embargo and for normalization of relations. And
the number of eligible voters of Cuban descent in Florida is 550,000, almost a rounding error. This
particular situation is explained in my book. Certain political changes remain taboo because an iron rice
bowl and an iron triangle have been institutionalized. The iron rice bowl feeds tens of thousands of
people who make money from the continuation of the embargo. I don’t know anyone who makes a
full-time living being against the embargo in the US. There’s no money in it. The iron triangle is money
from Washington, DC that goes to Miami, which sends a portion of it back to the campaigns of elected
officials, who vote to keep the money flowing to Miami so they get their cut. The 50 years of the
embargo are evidence that the US is not actually a democracy, but, rather, a plutocracy, or
government by money. To be more specific, there is a flow of billions of dollars of federal funds to
Cuban-American organizations, both for-profit and nonprofits, part of which goes to the CubanAmerican politicians and their fellow travelers to keep them elected and part of which goes to anyone
who is against a supporter of ending the embargo. These politicians then make sure to pass the
spending. So it’s federal money laundering on a grand scale. Want examples? $1.4 billion for sugar
subsidies to destroy the Everglades, one of the largest and most pointless terraforming projects in the
world. There was a cover story in The Atlantic ten years ago that should have ended it, but this waste of
money and a great ecosystem still continues. And there is the $500 million spent on Radio and TV
Martí. Besides stealing the name of Cuba’s greatest hero (imagine if Iran called its broadcasting George
Washington TV), it’s money that’s spent paying people in Miami to create propaganda that goes only
to other people in Miami, by paying for the equivalent of infomercials in prime time. No Cuban I’ve
met (and I tried hard) has seen TV Martí… the signals are blocked. Many had heard Radio Martí.
However, because the US does not allow Cuba to pay for content, Cuba just takes it. Something like 85%
of Cuban TV is from the US. Cuba uses US standards like NTSC, instead of PAL, to better pirate US
content. People were happy to see James Cameron’s Avatar on television. Most of the people I know are
more up to date on US movies than Americans, since movies are shown on Cuban national television
while they are still in US theaters. Returning to Radio and TV Martí, I will give you a specific example. I
have an associate whose friend is a painter. He gave a bid of $5,000 to TV Martí to paint some rooms.
They accepted the bid, and said, “We will pay you $10,000, but you need to give a $1,000 donation to
each of these five Cuban-American politicians.” He had no problem with this in principle — it’s well
known in Little Havana that this is how it works. He checked with his accountant, found that it would
cost an extra $170 in taxes, and asked for $10,170. TV Martí refused, saying he should be a more
patriotic. This made him angry, so he’s complaining… but not about the campaigns (that’s not even
worth mentioning), but, rather, that they wouldn’t pay his taxes on the contributions. Multiply this by
tens of millions of dollars a year, and you have elected officials that can’t accomplish anything because,
like naked short selling in the US stock market, these officials have effectively unlimited funds for their
own campaigns — even though their policies cost Miami jobs, and make it one of the worst markets for
foreclosures in America. Without the political campaigns funds from Washington, why would people
vote against creating over 100,000 new jobs in Miami, which would be enough to fix their broken real
estate market? The cover illustration of my book Reconciliation shows a clock with the eleven US
presidents who have maintained the US embargo, all revolving around Fidel Castro. Obama shows no
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
159
signs of lifting the embargo before he leaves office, so I put a question mark for the 12 o’clock position. I
do think the next US president will lift the embargo, because by that time the world will have united
against the US. H+: What are a few of the most surprising things that you think people might learn from
your book, about Cuba or about the embargo? AL: The key to achieving a transhumanist future is not by
just dwelling in the never-never nebulosity of endless possibility, but, rather, finding a place where there
is mindless gridlock because of supermemes that have gotten control, and caused all parties to enter
into an uncreative, unresourceful state. And to blow it up conceptually, and re-imagine and recreate the
situation. My thought is that ending the US embargo of Cuba is so trivially simple that getting this
accomplished should be like an initiation, a future supercentenarian’s equivalent of child’s play — to
learn and earn the right to lead the people of earth into a peaceful, sustainable, superhuman prosperity.
If you can’t get over this Cuba nonsense, or something of equal real-world complexity that’s frozen
and stuck in stupidity, you are just playing a real-world role-playing game, and you aren’t mature
enough to ethically advocate radical transformation. Let me give an example. I love Ray Kurzweil, and
take him seriously as a transhumanist because, while I was at MIT, I did some volunteering with blind
engineers at one of his companies. The blind have an unemployment rate of over 70%, when they, of all
people, really need work to feel a part of their community and society. Ray paid his dues. He solves
tough social problems, and that gave him the ethical right to talk about bigger changes. Peter
Diamandis, who was in my class of ’83 at MIT, provided a major boost to space education, and then with
the X Prize he gave an amazing boost, both to private space, and brilliantly, to the resurgence of prizes
to accomplish social tasks. Peter also has big, bold statements, visions and changes he wants. But he
helped solve real-world social problems, and he earned the right to say cool, wacky things like “I will live
to 700 years old”, as he did in our interview last year. I give him full props for that. However, what I
think could be done, and hasn’t been, is to set a task to the community of transhumanists that we could
ALL put our effort behind, and know whether we succeeded or not, and then ALL benefit from. My
understanding is that if transhumanists united in getting the embargo lifted, we’d have billions of
dollars in brilliant biotech scientists and a government-run medical complex with expertise in diffusing
innovations to over 100 countries ready, willing and able to take us all as seriously as we take Ray or
Peter, or Elon or Richard Branson, in their futurist activities. So, what will H+ readers in particular get?
The understanding that they have the power to use their intellects and positive constructive ability to
envision and describe the future, and to get a stuck situation, uniting 187 countries in angry opposition
to the US, unstuck. The whole world minus transhumanists = failure. The whole world plus
transhumanists = success. I don’t know any other problem or challenge so perfectly, deliciously solvable
that is poised for us to complete it. H+: How do you foresee this book impacting on the general
discourse around the Cuba embargo? AL: Patriotism is the last refuge for scoundrels. If smart people
without a dog in this fight (i.e. non-Cubans or non-Cuban-Americans) read this, and start talking about it,
and start asking, “How can eleven US presidents in a row violate their oath to protect the US
Constitution, and have no one notice or care?” then the book will have achieved its purpose. I also
think that it increases my chances of winning a Nobel Peace Prize from zero to one percent over the
next forty years, since when (there is no if, only when) the US embargo is lifted, I have no doubt that I
will get some credit — if not during the period immediately around the ending of the embargo, then
afterwards, as America does actually add over 200,000 Cuba-related jobs. The highest estimates now
are only about 65,000 jobs, which is absurdly low. My estimates for GDP growth, exports, medicines,
medical tourism, oil and gas revenues are all going to suddenly look pretty future-savvy. Though, for a
futurist and a transhumanist, they weren’t relatively difficult to forecast. So, what I want to do is up the
ante to be a cool futurist or an awesome transhumanist. I want to play the game where you don’t just
say talk about how the far future will improve the lives of yourself and your H+ friends. I want to
challenge other H+ people to make forecasts, predictions, and policy advocacy that will improve the
lives of poor people, unfree and oppressed people, and I see both Americans and Cubans as fitting those
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
160
categories. In short, I see Reconciliation: 78 Reasons to End the US Embargo of Cuba as the start of a
new kind of futurist literature, from the school of Blueprint Prophecy, in which you make good
predictions that make so much sense, ethically, financially, socially, that smart ethical people rally to the
high frequency bird call, say, “Hell, yes, let’s fix this!” Then build on our momentum to solve ever
tougher challenges in our Eversmarter world.
161
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Impact – Disease
Climate Change makes diseases go global
Hasham ’11 (Alyshah, 1/25/13, International News Services, “Climate Change spreads
Infectious Diseases Worldwide”, http://www.internationalnewsservices.com/articles/1latest-news/17833-climate-change-spreads-infectious-diseases-worldwide, accessed
6/30/13, WP)
As negotiators at the recent United Nations climate change conference in Cancun wrapped up their
work, one problem concentrating minds enough to secure a partial deal was the spread of disease on
the coat-tails of global warming. Infectious diseases are spreading to regions where they were
previously absent, driven by warmer temperatures and changing rainfall patterns. Europe and North America
have been seeing an increase in cases of West Nile disease, which as the name suggests thrives in tropical and sub-tropical regions. Warmer
temperatures are allowing the mosquitoes that carry the disease to roam further north. It’s a similar
story for diseases such as dengue fever or tick-borne encephalitis (which causes brain inflammation).¶ ¶ The UK is by
no means an exception to this trend. A recent study from the University of Plymouth concluded that the most
dangerous climate-change linked threat to Britain's environmental health could be vector borne
diseases (such as Leishmaniasis - carried by the sand fly) which could spread to new areas because of warming
temperatures. It concluded: "Environmental change could in turn lead to changes in the epidemiology
of communicable disease within the UK.” And there is also the potential for disease being caused by
extreme weather conditions, potentially associated with climate change, such as the 2004 flooding in Boscastle,
Cornwall, which caused an outbreak of Ecoli 0157. Worldwide, in 2008 the World Conservation Society identified a ‘Deadly Dozen’, 12 animalborne diseases that may more likely to spread due to climate change. The list includes bird flu, tuberculosis, Ebola, cholera, babesiosis,
parasites, Lyme disease, plague, Rift Valley fever, sleeping sickness, yellow fever and red tides (algal blooms).It is
well established
that climate change is a fundamental factor in the spread of infectious diseases, said Dr Richard Ostfeld, a
disease ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, in New York. The classic example is malaria moving upslope in the East African
highlands, in Zimbabwe and Mozambique with the warmer temperatures. Another is dengue, a disease also transmitted by mosquitoes that has
been increasing in severity in urban areas in developing countries. If all other factors (such as migration and population) remain constant, the
World Health Organisation predicts that an additional 2 billion people could be exposed to dengue (also called break-bone fever) by the 2080s.
Ostfeld says the case is often made that clean buildings and sanitation will cancel out the effects of climate change on the spread of diseases –
an argument he does not agree with“It is misleading to be too sanguine about our infrastructure being able to protect us against diseases,” said
Ostfeld. Speaking to Environmental Health News, he cited a West Nile disease outbreak in California during the bursting of the housing bubble
to make his point. Mosquitoes began breeding in the slimy green soup in abandoned swimming pools of foreclosed homes. And the H1N1
pandemic is still fresh in the public memory. However,
establishing a relationship between disease and
environmental factors is a far step from associating those environmental factors with climate change.
The cholera epidemic in Haiti is probably related to a rise in temperatures and salinity in the delta
where the epidemic began, said Dr David Sack of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, USA.
But determining the role of climate change is another story. In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr Emily Shuman agrees
that climate has a strong impact on vector-borne and water-borne diseases. Droughts, for example,
often cause West Nile disease epidemics because the birds and mosquitoes carrying the disease are
driven to scarce water sources, enhancing transmission. The drought also kills off natural predators of mosquitoes.
Madeleine Thomson, a senior research scientist at the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI), also in New York, said the
challenge lies in determining whether climate change plays a role in this drought, and what other factors were involved. “The focus of climate
change and disease tend to be transmission,” she added. It
is important to think about how climate change impacts
the poor in developing countries, who are relying on rain-fed agriculture for food and income. Climate
change also leads to poverty and food insecurity. Both are major drivers in ill health, which increases
susceptibility to infectious diseases. Already inadequate health services in many developing nations
will be hard pressed to accommodate an increase in diseases, not to mention the problems that new
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
162
and unfamiliar diseases will pose. Other studies warn of the possibility of new types of mosquitoes that may be more effective at
spreading the disease. Another challenge is the lack of data. There is often not enough long-term disease data. Climate change is measured
through mathematical modeling, and may not always be used correctly by scientists studying disease. However, the gap between
epidemiologists and meteorologists is closing, with an increase in combined research said Thomson.
A global disease will not just threaten the health of the individual – it will
unchecked lead to extreme negative effects on the global economy, undermine
social order, catalyze regional instability, and pose the threat of bioterrorism.
Brower ’03 (Jennifer, September 2003, The RAND institute,
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nie99-17d.htm, accessed 6/30/13, WP)
The increasing transnational threat of infectious disease deserves special attention within this context
of the evolving definition of security in the post–Cold War era. State centric models of security are
ineffective at coping with issues, such as the spread of diseases that originate within sovereign
borders, but have effects that are felt regionally and globally. Human security reflects the new challenges facing society
in the 21st century. In this model, the primary object of security is the individual, not the state. As a result, an individual’s security depends not
only on the integrity of the state but also on the quality of that individual’s life. Infectious disease clearly represents a threat to human security
in that it has the potential to affect both the person and his or her ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
In addition to
threatening the health of an individual, the spread of disease can weaken public confidence in
government’s ability to respond, have an adverse economic impact, undermine a state’s social order,
catalyze regional instability, and pose a strategic threat through bioterrorism and/or biowarfare . While
infectious diseases are widely discussed, few treatises have addressed the security implications of emerging and reemerging ill- nesses. This
report provides a more comprehensive analysis than has been done to date, encompassing both disease and security. It comes at a critical
juncture, as the magnitude and nature of the threat is growing because of the emergence of new illnesses such as Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS), Ebola, and hepatitis C; the increasing inability of modern medicine to respond to resistant and emerging pathogens; and the
growing threat of bioterrorism and biowarfare. In addition, human
actions amplify these trends by putting us in evergreater contact with deadly microbes. Globalization, modern medical practices, urbanization, climatic
change, and changing social and behavioral patterns all serve to increase the chance that individuals
will come in contact with diseases, which they may not be able to survive. The AIDS crisis in South
Africa provides a disturbing example of how a pathogen can affect security at all levels, from
individual to regional and even to global. Approximately one-quarter of the adult population in South Africa is Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) positive, with the disproportionate burden of illness traditionally falling on the most economically and personally
productive segment of society. The true impact of the AIDS epidemic is yet to be felt. Deaths from full-blown AIDS are not projected to peak
until the period between 2009 and 2012, and the number of HIV infections is still increasing.¶ The disease
is responsible for
undermining social and economic stability, weakening military preparedness, contributing to
increases in crime and the lack of a capability to respond to it, and weakening regional stability. Specific
effects include creating more than two million orphans, removing about US$22 billion from South Africa’s economy, and limiting South Africa’s
ability to participate in inter- national peacekeeping missions.¶ Many causes played a role in the development of the crisis, including
promiscuous heterosexual sex, the low status of women, prostitution, sexual abuse and violence, a popular attitude that dismisses risk, as well
as the failure to acknowledge the magnitude of the problem in the early and middle stages of the epidemic. The South African government has
made a relatively small effort to curb the epidemic, in part due to President Thabo Mbeki’s public questioning of the link between HIV and AIDS,
and this has had devastating results. This example serves as a lesson to other countries; if unaddressed, infectious disease can negatively and
overwhelmingly affect a state’s functions and security.¶ Currently the United States is managing the infectious disease threat; however, there
are many indications that,
if left unchecked, pathogens could present a serious threat to the smooth
functioning of the country. Many of the global factors that serve to increase the threat from
pathogenic microbes are particularly relevant for the United States. These include globalization,
modern medical practices, urbanization, global climatic change, and changing social and behavioral
patterns. Deaths from infectious illnesses average approximately 170,000 per year, but the scope of the situation is much larger when
stigmatization, productivity losses, and other psychological and economic costs are taken into account. In addition, the ability of pathogens to
mutate and to spread into previously unknown habitats means that the toll could increase significantly. In the second half of the 20th century
almost 30 new human diseases were identified, and antibiotic and drug resistance grew at an alarming rate. This trend applies equally to animal
diseases. As
citizens continue to travel, import food and goods globally, engage in promiscuous sex, use
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
163
illegal intravenous drugs, encroach on new habitats, and utilize donated blood, their chances of
coming in con- tact with new or more virulent organisms increases. The added threat of bioterrorism intensifies the
risk of encountering a life- threatening microbe.virus, Lassa virus, Yersinia pestis, Francisella tularensis, and Bacillus anthracis.
The pandemic is coming – vaccinations are the way to prepare ourselves to ensure
that the next one isn’t the big one.
Quammen ’12 (David, 9/22/12, The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/anticipating-the-nextpandemic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed 6/30/13, WP)
BAD news is always interesting, especially when it starts small and threatens to grow large, like the
little cloud on the distant horizon, no bigger than “a man’s hand,” that is destined to rise as a
thunderhead (1 Kings 18:44). That’s why we read so avidly about the recent outbreaks of Ebola virus
disease among villages in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and about West Nile fever in the area
around Dallas (where 15 have died of it since July). And that’s why, early this month, heads turned toward Yosemite National Park after the
announcement of a third death from hantavirus pulmonary syndrome among recent visitors there.¶ Humans
die in large numbers
every day, every hour, from heart failure and automobile crashes and the dreary effects of poverty;
but strange new infectious diseases, even when the death tolls are low, call up a more urgent sort of
attention. Why?¶ There’s a tangle of reasons, no doubt, but one is obvious: whenever an outbreak occurs, we all ask ourselves
whether it might herald the Next Big One.¶ What I mean by the Next Big One is a pandemic of some newly
emerging or re-emerging infectious disease, a global health catastrophe in which millions die. The
influenza epidemic of 1918-19 was a big one, killing about 50 million people worldwide. The Hong Kong
flu of 1968-69 was biggish, causing at least a million deaths. AIDS has killed some 30 million and counting .
Scientists who study this subject — virologists, molecular geneticists, epidemiologists, disease ecologists — stress its complexity but tend to
agree on a few points.¶ Yes,
there probably will be a Next Big One, they say. It will most likely be caused by a
virus, not by a bacterium or some other kind of bug. More specifically, we should expect an RNA virus (specifically, one that bears its genome
as a single molecular strand), as distinct from a DNA virus (carrying its info on the reliable double helix, less prone to mutation, therefore less
variable and adaptable). Finally, this RNA virus will almost certainly be zoonotic — a pathogen that emerges from some nonhuman animal to
infect, and spread among, human beings.¶ The influenzas are zoonoses. They emerge from wild aquatic birds, sometimes with a pig as an
intermediary host on the way to humanity. AIDS is a zoonosis; the pandemic strain of H.I.V. emerged about a century ago from a single
Cameroonian chimpanzee. Ebola is a zoonosis. The Ebola viruses (there are five known species) abide inconspicuously in some as yet
unidentified creature or creatures native to Central African forests, spilling over occasionally to kill gorillas and chimps and people. SARS is a
zoonosis that emerged from a Chinese bat, fanned out of Hong Kong to the wider world, threatened to be the Next Big One, and then was
stopped — barely — by fast and excellent medical science.¶ And the hantaviruses, of which there are many known species (Andes virus, Black
Creek Canal virus, Muleshoe virus, Seoul virus, Puumala virus and dozens more), come out of rodents. The species of hantavirus at large in
Yosemite is called Sin Nombre — “nameless” — virus, and is the same one that erupted famously, and lethally, at the Four Corners in 1993. Its
primary host is the deer mouse, one of the most widely distributed and abundant vertebrates in North America. The virus makes its way from
dried mouse urine or feces into airborne dust, and from airborne dust into human lungs. If that happens to you, you’re in trouble. There’s no
treatment, and the fatality rate for hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, the infection in severe form, runs at about 40 percent.¶ You don’t have to
go to Yosemite and sleep in a dusty cabin to put yourself close to a hantavirus. Although one expert, recently quoted by Scientific American,
called it a “very rare” kind of virus, that view doesn’t square with the studies I’ve read or the testimony of hantavirus researchers I’ve
interviewed. The virus seems to be relatively common, at least among deer mice. A 2008 study done at Tuolumne Meadows in Yosemite found
that 24 percent of local deer mice had the antibody for the virus, signaling a past or current infection. One mouse in four is worryingly high.
Among these mouse populations nationwide, the prevalence of the antibody seems to vary from as low as zero to as high as 49 percent, or one
in two mice.¶ The question this raises is: Why aren’t more people dying from Sin Nombre virus? The answer seems to be that, although very
dangerous when caught, it’s not easy to catch, despite its presence in mouse-infested sheds and trailers and garages and barns across much of
America. This is because it doesn’t pass from person to person — only from mouse to mouse, and from mouse excretions to one unlucky
person or another, each of whom represents a dead-end host. (The “dead” of that “dead-end” may be figurative or literal.) It’s not a “very rare”
virus; it’s a common virus known only rarely to infect humans, and with no ramifying chains of human contagion. So the Next Big One is not
likely to be Sin Nombre.¶ Nor is it likely to be Ebola, which is transmissible from human to human through direct contact with bodily fluids, but
can be stopped by preventing such contact. Furthermore, Ebola burns so hotly in its victims, incapacitating and killing so quickly, that it is poorly
adapted to achieve global dispersal. Only one human has ever been known to leave Africa with a rampant Ebola virus infection — and that was
a Swiss woman, evacuated in 1994 to a hospital in Basel. If you want to be grateful for something today, be grateful for that: Ebola doesn’t fly.¶
WE should recognize such blessings, and try to focus our deepest concerns on real global dangers. Too often, we’re distracted from good
scientific information by yellow journalism and the frisson of melodrama. Ebola is charismatic, the demon that people love to fear. Other lurid
candidates, like hantavirus and SARS, also get their share of headlines. When you mention emerging diseases, people’s responses tend to fall at
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
164
the two ends of a spectrum. Some folks are mesmerized by the dark possibilities and the garish but unrepresentative cases. Others are
dismissive, rolling their eyes at the prospect of having to contemplate still another category of dire monition. They want you to cut to the chase.
“Are we all gonna die?” they ask. Or they say: “Fine, so what can we do about these bugs?”¶ Yes,
we are all going to die, though
most of us not from a strange disease newly emerged from a mouse or a chimp. And there are things
we can do: get a flu vaccination; support calls for research; avoid coughing people on airplanes; apply
mosquito repellent; wear a mask when you sweep out your old shed; don’t eat any chimpanzee meat
from an animal found dead in the forest
Disease lead to extinction
Yu, Dartmouth Undergrad, 9
(Victoria, Undergraduate at Dartmouth, University publication, “Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate,”
Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, 22 May 2009, 6-31-13)
A pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps
the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in
the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other
infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly emerging — a process that maintains the
possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a
potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable
cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIV’s rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the
virus’s abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIV’s use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a
proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8).
Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale
global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS
itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However, for
more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more
consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new
strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a
new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can
spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic,” according to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when
bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the
Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required
to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10).
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
165
Impact – Generic Drugs Good
Studies prove, generic drugs work just as well
Berkley Wellness, the leading online resource for evidence-based wellness
information, 13
(2/26/13 Berkley Wellness, “How Good are Generic Drugs?” http://www.berkeleywellness.com/self-care/article/how-good-aregeneric-drugs 6/30/13 MG)
The FDA (as well as Health Canada) requires generics to measure up to the originals in terms of strength, quality, purity and safety.
Generics must deliver to the body the same amount of active ingredient, at very close to the same rate, as their brand-name
counterparts—this is called bioequivalence. (Some generics are made by the same manufacturers that make the
branded drugs and are then sold to the generics companies, in which case the drugs are truly
identical.) The FDA requires manufacturers to do bioequivalence testing of generics, though not
necessarily of all formulations; it rarely does the testing itself. Complicating matters is the fact that
generics for a specific drug are typically made by several companies.¶ Even though brand name and generic drugs
have the same active ingredient, the drugs can differ in shape, color and inactive ingredients, such as preservatives and fillers. A
generic tablet may be harder or softer than the original, which could affect how quickly it dissolves and is absorbed. And a generic of a
time-release drug may employ a different mechanism to gradually release the active ingredient.¶ For these and other reasons, generics
may not be the exact bioequivalent of the originals. The FDA does allow some leeway for generics (as well as for differences among
brand-name drugs). Its reviews of thousands of studies have found that the absorption of generics differs
from the brand names by only 3 to 4 percent, on average, comparable to differences among batches
of many brand-name drugs. Such a small difference won’t matter for most drugs, but for some it may reduce
effectiveness and/or safety. Moreover, that “average” difference disguises a wider range of variability in bioequivalence.
Generic drugs are basically equivalent to the name brand drug
Hupila, Summer Intern, Consumer Health Information Corporation, 08
(Mathew 2008 CHIC, “5 Common Questions About Generic Drugs” http://www.consumerhealth.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.php 6/30/13 MG)
Are Generic Drugs as Safe and Effective as Brand Name Drugs?¶ The short answer to this question is “usually yes”. A company
must prove that its generic version of a drug is both safe and effective before it can be sold to the
public. The company that made the original brand name drug proved during years of testing that the
drug is both safe and effective.¶ A company that makes a generic drug must show that its version of
the drug is 80%-125% “bioequivalent” to the original brand name drug. For example: a brand name drug is taken
and it is found that 100mg of medicine reaches the person’s bloodstream. For a generic version of the drug to be considered safe and
effective, the active drug in the tablet or capsule must release between 80mg and 125mg reach the bloodstream (80-125%). This
means that some companies might make generic versions that have 80mg reach the bloodstream and other companies might make
generic versions that have 125mg reach the bloodstream. This difference isn’t a problem in most drugs. There are a few drugs,
however, in which this can be an issue.¶ For example, some drugs are only safe and effective when the amount of medicine is within a
small range in the bloodstream. This small range is called a “narrow therapeutic window.” This means that a small change in dose can
cause a large change in the way the drug acts in the body. Below the therapeutic window, the drug is not effective. Above the
therapeutic window, the drug could be harmful because too much drug is getting into the bloodstream. It is critical that the medicine
be given in a dose that falls in the safe and effective range.¶ Let’s say a person is taking one of these drugs with a
narrow therapeutic window. They have been taking a generic version of the drug that is 80%
bioequivalent to the original brand name drug. After a few months, their pharmacy orders a generic
version of the same drug that is made by a different company. This new version is 125% bioequivalent
to the original brand name drug. This means that the new version of the drug could contain as much
as 45% more active drug than the old version.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
166
Generic drugs are just as efficient as brand name
Lipschitz, the author of the book "Breaking the Rules of Aging.", 08
(Dr. David 2008 creators.com “Studies Show Generic Drugs Are as Effective as Brand Names” http://www.creators.com/health/davidlipschitz-lifelong-health/studies-show-generic-drugs-are-as-effective-as-brand-names.html 6/30/13 MG)
It always makes sense to go for the generic drug whenever you have a choice.¶ When it comes to choosing generic drugs
over a brand name, American consumers are at a disadvantage. Through savvy marketing campaigns and strategic
campaigning by generous pharmaceutical representatives, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent every year to promote the newest
medications. Generics are thrown to the wayside — no marketing, no promotions, nothing. The end result is patients requesting
specific brand-name drugs. What's more, many patients insist that the generic simply doesn't work. And when insurance companies
refuse to pay for the more expensive therapy, mayhem breaks out.¶ What's the deal? Is there any difference between generic and
brand-name therapies?¶ Here's the bottom line: In more than 50 years of clinical experience, there is no scientific
trial that has ever shown brand-name medications are superior to their generic counterparts.¶ The Food
and Drug Administration requires that the active ingredients be identical. There can be a difference, however. The composition of the
pill or the capsule may be different. It may vary in shape, have different fillers or flavoring and possess a different color. But, to fully
understand the effect of any differences, the FDA also requires the makers of the generic drug to perform pilot
tests to demonstrate that the subject's blood levels of the active ingredient, and the method and rate
at which it is cleared from the body must be identical to the brand-name equivalent.¶ Despite this, many
people — doctors and patients — refrain from using generic drugs. Detractors of generic medications often complain that the
generic pill may be absorbed differently from patient to patient, or that there may be adverse reactions, such as allergies,
to an ingredient in the generic drug. Another concern is that the source of the drug may change as one company competes with
another to offer their generic at a lower cost.¶ Recently, Naomi Wax wrote an article in the Los Angeles Times in which she discussed
the hidden downside of generic drugs. She has depression, and strongly felt that she responded differently to generic Zoloft, causing
her symptoms to worsen.¶ She then found out that many patients, when switched from the brand-name Wellbutrin XL 300 to the
generic version of the antidepressant, complained of worsening depression, panic attacks, anxiety and thoughts of suicide.¶ Wellbutrin
XL is a slow-release medication, which means that the drug is gradually released from the tablet over a 24-hour period. Studies by a
private laboratory showed that 34 percent of the active ingredient in the generic drug was released in two hours, compared to 8
percent in the brand name. It was postulated that the difference in release was contributing to the symptoms. Wax states that the FDA
is investigating this complaint.¶ While it is possible that a slow-release medication could be different from one pill to another,
significant differences between generic and brand-name drugs are extremely rare. And for every one person
who complains that the generic is ineffective, millions take it without any adverse reactions.¶ When it comes to choosing brand-name
therapy over generics, many patients see the powerful effect of the mind over the body. If you believe that a medication will not help
you, there is a good chance that it won't, and vice versa.¶ My advice about generic medications is simple: For most medical illnesses,
the tried, true and older therapies are often as effective as — or more effective than — the new. If a generic medication is
available, always insist on using it before trying a brand-name alternative. Because of the difference in
costs, generic drugs must always be the first choice.¶ However, if you switch from a brand name to a generic, keep an
open mind and rest assured that it will work. Be positive — it helps. If the generic does not seem to work, discuss the problem with
your pharmacist or doctor. Find out whether others are experiencing similar problems. If you are absolutely convinced that the drug is
ineffective, do not count on sympathy from your insurance company. A better alternative will be to work with your physician, who can
prescribe an alternate medication that hopefully will be more effective
Generic drugs are a lot cheaper than name brand drugs
Hupila, Summer Intern, Consumer Health Information Corporation, 08
(Mathew 2008 CHIC, “5 Common Questions About Generic Drugs” http://www.consumerhealth.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.php 6/30/13 MG)
A brand name drug has to go through 10-15 years of research and testing in animals and people
before it can be sold to the public. During this testing, the company making the drug must prove that
it is safe and effective for people to use. All of this testing can cost over $1 billion. Once the new drug is approved, the
company that made and tested it receives a patent. This means that no other company can make the drug until the end of the patent,
which is usually 10-15 years after the drug is released.¶ When a patent for a brand name drug expires, any other
company can copy the drug and sell a generic version. These other companies must only prove that
their product is the same as the brand name drug. This means that generic drug companies do not
have to spend as much time and money because they do not have to invent or test the drug for safety
and get FDA-approval. This is why generic drugs cost less.¶ When a patent for a brand name drug
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
167
expires, there are usually a number of companies that begin to make a generic version of the drug.
Since there is more than one company making the drug, the price is lowered even farther due to competition between all of the
different generic drug makers.
Cuba has good, cheap, generic drugs
Dan, editor at CCTV.com, 12
(Zhang 4/8/12 CCTV.com, “Cuba's technology keeps medical costs down”
http://english.cntv.cn/program/newshour/20120408/112348.shtml 6/30/13 MG)
Countries across the globe are observing World Health Day despite the challenge of providing low-cost medical care. Generic
drugs are an important factor in keeping costs down. Cuba has its own ’technology’ to make them. ¶
Cuba has long prided itself on its free healthcare. Almost all the major indicators, from infant mortality rates to average
life expectance, are as good as most of the developed world. But it hasn’t been easy.¶ Cuba has no access to American
made medicines, because of the decade’s old US trade embargo. So instead it decided to develop a
pharmaceutical industry of its own.¶ Now the authorities here have signed a four year agreement with the World Health
Organisation for the transfer of Cuban generic drug technology to poorer nations. ¶ Margaret Chan, Director General of WHO, said,
"One thing that WHO and Cuba can do very well is in technology transfer, in knowledge transfer, so that other countries in the region
and outside the region can produce high quality affordable generic medicines, diagnostics and medical devises." ¶ Medical assistance
has become a major part of Cuba’s soft diplomacy. Thousands of Cuban health workers are involved overseas medical missions
overseas. These doctors, for example, are helping combat cholera in Haiti.¶ Roberto Morales, Cuban Minister of Public Health, said, "It
isn’t just about looking after our own population, as Fidel Castro has repeatedly said, medicine is about serving humanity."¶ Cuba’s
bio-technology sector produces about 80 percent of the prescription drugs it needs. As well as
generics drugs, Cuba also invented the world’s first meningitis B vaccine and has a range of cancer
therapy drugs which are now being commercialised in joint ventures around the world.
168
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Impact—Bioterror
Solves bioterror
Bailey, Science Correspond for Reason Magazine, 1 [Ronald, award-winning science correspondent for Reason
magazine and Reason.com, where he writes a weekly science and technology column. Bailey is the author of the book Liberation Biology: The
Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution (Prometheus, 2005), and his work was featured in The Best American Science and Nature
Writing 2004. In 2006, Bailey was shortlisted by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the personalities who have made the "most
significant contributions" to biotechnology in the last 10 years. 11/7/1, “The Best Biodefense,” Reason,
http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/07/the-best-biodefense]
But Cipro and other antibiotics are just a small part of the arsenal that could one day soon be deployed in defending America against
biowarfare. Just consider
what’s in the pipeline now that could be used to protect Americans against
infectious diseases, including bioterrorism. A Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Research Association survey found 137
new medicines for infectious diseases in drug company research and development pipelines, including 19
antibiotics and 42 vaccines. With regard to anthrax, instead of having to rush a sample to a lab where it takes hours or even days to culture,
biotech companies have created test strips using antibody technologies that can confirm the presence
of anthrax in 15 minutes or less, allowing decontamination and treatment to begin immediately. Similar test
strips are being developed for the detection of smallpox as well. The biotech company EluSys Therapeutics is working on an
exciting technique which would "implement instant immunity." EluSys joins two monoclonal antibodies chemically
together so that they act like biological double-sided tape. One antibody sticks to toxins, viruses, or bacteria while the other binds to human red
blood cells. The red blood cells carry the pathogen or toxin to the liver for destruction and return unharmed to the normal blood circulation. In
one test, the
EluSys treatment reduced the viral load in monkeys one million-fold in less than an hour.
The technology could be applied to a number of bioterrorist threats, such as dengue fever, Ebola and
Marburg viruses, and plague. Of course, the EluSys treatment would not just be useful for responding to bioterrorist attacks, but
also could treat almost any infection or poisoning. Further down the development road are technologies that could
rapidly analyze a pathogen’s DNA, and then guide the rapid synthesis of drugs like the ones being developed by
EluSys that can bind, or disable, segments of DNA crucial to an infectious organism's survival. Again, this technology would be a great boon
for treating infectious diseases and might be a permanent deterrent to future bioterrorist attacks. Seizing Bayer’s
patent now wouldn’t just cost that company and its stockholders a little bit of money (Bayer sold $1 billion in Cipro last year), but would
reverberate throughout the pharmaceutical research and development industry. If governments begin to seize patents on the pretext of
addressing alleged public health emergencies, the investment in research that would bring about new and effective treatments could dry up.
Investors and pharmaceutical executives couldn’t justify putting $30 billion annually into already risky and uncertain research if they couldn’t be
sure of earning enough profits to pay back their costs. Consider what happened during the Clinton health care fiasco, which threatened to
impose price controls on prescription drugs in the early 1990s: Growth in research spending dropped off dramatically from 10 percent annually
to about 2 percent per year. A
far more sensible and farsighted way to protect the American public from
health threats, including bioterrorism, is to encourage further pharmaceutical research by respecting drug
patents. In the final analysis, America’s best biodefense is a vital and profitable pharmaceutical and
biotechnology industry.
That solves Extinction
Steinbrenner, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow, 97
(John Steinbrenner, Senior Fellow – Brookings, Foreign Policy, 12-22-1997, Lexis, 6-31-13)
Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential weapons of
mass destruction, there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are alive, weapons are
not. Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not independently engage in
adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The
use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever
they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is
detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of
radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
169
an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological
agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few
pathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be
contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that
could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying
cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918 influenza
epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.
170
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Economy**
171
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Module – Economy
Lifting the embargo causes huge economic stimulus—empirically proven by the Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act
Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, 05
(Daniel, 8/12/05,The Cato Institute, “Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo
against Cuba,” http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-usembargo-against-cuba, accessed 6/23/13., IC)
As a foreign policy tool, the
embargo actually enhances Castro”s standing by giving him a handy excuse for the
failures of his homegrown Caribbean socialism. He can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though
the damage done by his domestic policies is far worse. If the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people would be a bit less
deprived and Castro would have no one else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that will persist
without real market reforms.¶ If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the
economic embargo has completely failed. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving
them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less
independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American
tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by
extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects.¶ Lost Opportunities for Americans¶ Cuban families are not the only victims of
the embargo. Many
of the dollars Cubans could earn from U.S. tourists would come back to the United States
to buy American products, especially farm goods.¶ In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 allows cash-only sales to Cuba of U.S. farm
products and medical supplies. The results of this opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales
of farm products to Cuba have increased from virtually zero to $380 million last year. From dead last in
U.S. farm export markets, Cuba ranked 25th last year out of 228 countries in total purchases of U.S. farm products.
Cuba is now the fifth largest export market in Latin America for U.S. farm exports. American farmers sold more to Cuba last
year than to Brazil. Our leading exports to Cuba are meat and poultry, rice, wheat, corn, and soybeans.¶ The American Farm
Bureau estimates that Cuba could eventually become a $1 billion agricultural export market for products
of U.S. farmers and ranchers. The embargo stifles another $250 million in potential annual exports of
fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and tractors. According to a study by the U.S. International Trade Commission, the
embargo costs American firms a total of $700 million to $1.2 billion per year. Farmers in Texas and neighboring
states are among the biggest potential winners. One study by Texas A&M University estimated that Texas ranks fifth among states in potential
farm exports to Cuba, with rice, poultry, beef and fertilizer the top exports.¶ Compounding our Failures¶
Sanctions fail—trade is key to promoting democracy and freedom
Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, 05
(Daniel, 8/12/05,The Cato Institute, “Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo
against Cuba,” http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-usembargo-against-cuba, accessed 6/23/13., IC)
Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, and North Korea have
failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened the
deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. Our research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade and
globalization till the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies
where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
172
communication-cell phones, satellite TV, fax machines, the Internet-that tend to undermine oppressive authority. Trade
not only increases the flow of goods and services but also of people and ideas. Development also creates a larger
middle class that is usually the backbone of democracy.¶ President Bush seems to understand this powerful connection
between trade and democracy when he talks about China or the Middle East. In a speech on trade early in his first term, the president noted
that trade was about more than raising incomes. “Trade
creates the habits of freedom,” the president said, and
those habits begin “to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies
that open to commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders. And for those of us who care about
values and believe in values—not just American values, but universal values that promote human dignity—trade is a
good way to do that.Ӧ The president has rightly opposed efforts in Congress to impose trade sanctions against China because of its
poor human rights record. In sheer numbers, the Chinese government has jailed and killed far more political and religious dissenters than has
the Cuban government. And China is arguably more of a national security concern today than Castro’s pathetic little workers’ paradise. Yet
China has become our third largest trading partner while we maintain a blanket embargo on commercial relations with Cuba. President Bush
understands that economic engagement with China offers the best hope for encouraging human
rights and political reforms in that country, yet he has failed to apply that same, sound thinking to Cuba.¶ In fact, the
Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez is doing more to undermine America’s national interest today than either Cuba or China. Chavez
shares Castro’s hatred for democratic capitalism, but unlike Castro he has the resources and money to spread his influence in the hemisphere.
Chavez is not only bankrolling Cuba with discounted oil but he is also supporting anti-Americans movements in Nicaragua and other countries in
our neighborhood. Yet we buy billions of dollars of oil a year from Venezuela’s state oil company, we allow huge Venezuelan investments in our
own energy sector, and Americans—last time I checked—can travel freely to Venezuela. The one big difference between Venezuela and Cuba is
that we don’t have half a million politically active Venezuelan exiles living in a swing state like Ohio.¶ This is not an argument for an embargo
against Venezuela, but for greater coherence in U.S. foreign policy. In a world still inhabited by a number of unfriendly and oppressive regimes,
there is simply nothing special about Cuba that warrants the drastic option of a total embargo.¶ Cuban-American Politics¶ For all those reasons,
pressure has been building in Congress for a new policy toward Cuba. In the past five years, the House and occasionally the Senate have voted
to lift the travel ban to Cuba, and also to lift the cap on remittances and even to lift the embargo altogether. Yet each time efforts in Congress
to ease the embargo have been thwarted by the administration and the Republican leadership. Support for the embargo certainly does not
come from the general American public, but from a group of Cuban-American activists concentrated in southern Florida. By a fluke of the
electoral college, Republican presidents feel obligated to please this small special interest at the expense of our broader national interest.¶ It’s
ironic that many of those very same Cuban-Americans who support the embargo also routinely and massively violate the spirit if not the letter
of the law. Each year, Cuban Americans send hundreds of millions in hard-dollar remittances to their friends and families back in Cuba. Another
100,000 or so Cuban Americans actually visit their homeland each year. These are supposed to be so-called “emergency” visits, although a
disproportionate number of the emergencies for some strange reason occur around the Christmas holiday. In the name of politics, Cuban
American leaders want to restrict the freedom of other Americans to visit Cuba while retaining that freedom for themselves.¶ Expanding Our
Influence in Cuba¶ Instead of the embargo, Congress
and the administration should take concrete steps to expand
America’s economic and political influence in Cuba. First, the travel ban should be lifted. According to U.S. law, citizens
can travel more or less freely to such “axis of evil” countries as Iran and North Korea. But if Americans want to visit Cuba legally, they need to
be a former president or some other well-connected VIP or a Cuban American.¶ Yes, more American dollars would end up in the coffers of the
Cuban government, but dollars would also go to private Cuban citizens. Philip Peters, a former State Department official in the Reagan
administration and expert on Cuba, argues that 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 farmer’s markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other
entrepreneurs.¶ Second, restrictions on remittances should be lifted. Like tourism, expanded remittances
would fuel the private sector, encourage Cuba’s modest economic reforms, and promote
independence from the government.¶ Third, American farmers and medical suppliers should be allowed to sell their products to
Cuba with financing arranged by private commercial lenders, not just for cash as current law permits. Most international trade is financed by
temporary credit, and private banks, not taxpayers, would bear the risk. I oppose subsidizing exports to Cuba through agencies such as the
Export-Import Bank, but I also oppose banning the use of private commercial credit.¶ Finally, the
Helms-Burton law should be
allowed to expire. The law, like every other aspect of the embargo, has failed to achieve its stated objectives and has, in
fact, undermined American influence in Cuba and alienated our allies.¶ Lifting or modifying the embargo
would not be a victory for Fidel Castro or his oppressive regime. It would be an overdue acknowledgement that the four-and-ahalf decade embargo has failed, and that commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open
societies abroad. The U.S. government can and should continue to criticize the Cuban government’s abuse of human rights in the U.N.
and elsewhere, while allowing expanding trade and tourism to undermine Castro’s authority from below.¶ We should apply the president’s
sound reasoning on trade in general to our policy toward Cuba. The
most powerful force for change in Cuba will not be
more sanctions, but more daily interaction with free people bearing dollars and new ideas.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
173
Protectionism unleashes multiple scenarios for global nuclear war
Panzner, Prof. at the New York Institute of Finance, 9
(Michael Panzner, Prof. at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets who has worked
in New York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and JPMorgan Chase, Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future
from Economic Collapse, 2009, p. 136-138, 6-31-13)
Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth protectionist legislation
the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat
economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn into a
prolonged and devastating global disaster, But if history is any guide, those lessons will have been
long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on
like
trade, finance, investment, and immigration will almost certainly intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the crossborder movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile,
many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from
decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange, foreign individuals and companies
seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the (heap thanks to a rapidly
depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and
markets, disrupting global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence
and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through
arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife,
The rise in
isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous
confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of production that
or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly.
must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic
necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand
Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment
and natural resources will become more commonplace. Around the world, such tensions will give rise
to full-scale military encounters, often with minimal provocation. In some instances, economic
conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious
differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by
channeling frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap
technology and the waning threat of American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the
frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent
conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will
also take on a new, more healed sense of urgency. China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture
toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part,
seems constantly out of kilter with supply.
may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a
political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an "intense confrontation" between the United States and China is
"inevitable" at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences
Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate
quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing
biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunkerbusting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up conflicts between
Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.
will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood.
174
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Ext – Solves US/Cuba Econ
Solves American and Cuban econ.
Lloyd, PHD in Political Science, 2011
[Delia, Summer 2011, Politics Daily, “Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba
Embargo,”http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cubaembargo/ EJH]
It's good economics. It's long been recognized that opening up Cuba to American investment would be
a huge boon to the tourism industry in both countries. According to the Cuban government, 250,000
Cuban-Americans visited from the United States in 2009, up from roughly 170,000 the year before,
suggesting a pent-up demand. Lifting the embargo would also be an enormous boon the U.S.
agricultural sector. One 2009 study estimated that doing away with all financing and travel
restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba would have boosted 2008 dairy sales to that country
from $13 million to between $39 million and $87 million, increasing U.S. market share from 6 percent
to between 18 and 42 percent.
Solves democracy, economy, and oil exports best, and it’s extremely popular
Lloyd, Politics Daily Correspondent, 10
(Delia, 8/24/10, Politics Daily, “Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo,”
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/,
accessed 6/23/13, IC)
In that spirit, here are 10 reasons that lifting the embargo makes sense: 1. It's good economics. It's long been recognized that opening
up
Cuba to American investment would be a huge boon to the tourism industry in both countries. According
to the Cuban government, 250,000 Cuban-Americans visited from the United States in 2009, up from roughly
170,000 the year before, suggesting a pent-up demand. Lifting the embargo would also be an
enormous boon the U.S. agricultural sector. One 2009 study estimated that doing away with all financing and travel
restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba would have boosted 2008 dairy sales to that country from $13
million to between $39 million and $87 million, increasing U.S. market share from 6 percent to
between 18 and 42 percent. 2. It's good politics. Supporters of the trade embargo -- like Cuban-American Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
-- have long argued that easing the restrictions would only reward Castro for the regime's ongoing repression of political dissidents. We need to
keep up the economic pressure on Cuba, so this logic goes, in order to keep pressure on the regime to do something about human rights. But
there's a long-standing empirical relationship between trade and democracy. The usual logic put forth to explain
this relationship is that trade creates an economically independent and politically aware middle class, which ,
in turn, presses for political reform. It's not clear that this argument actually holds up when subjected to close causal scrutiny
(although the reverse does seem to be true -- i.e., democratic reform creates pressure for trade liberalization). Still, it's difficult to
disagree with the proposition that by enabling visiting scholars and religious groups to stay in Cuba for
up to two years (as the presidential order would allow) rather than a matter of weeks (as is currently the case) we'd be
helping, not hurting, democracy in Cuba. First, easing the current travel restrictions would allow for far deeper
linkages between non-governmental organizations from both countries, which some see as a powerful
mechanism for democratic reform. Second, because American visitors would be staying on the island longer, scholars and
activists alike would gain much better insight into where the pressure points for democracy actually exist. 3. It's a double standard. Another
reason to question the link between the embargo and human rights is that it's a double standard that flies in the face of U.S. foreign policy
toward other high-profile authoritarian countries, most notably China. Stephen Colbert once quipped that Cuba is "a totalitarian, repressive,
communist state that -- unlike China -- can't lend us money." Unless and until the U.S. pursues a consistent policy of sanctions against politically
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
175
repressive regimes, the case against Cuba doesn't hold up very well. 4. It's out of date. To argue that U.S.-Cuban policy is an anachronism is
putting it mildly. In an international climate marked by cooperation on issues ranging from terrorism to global financial crises, holding on to this
last vestige of the Cold War foreign policy no longer makes sense. (Bear in mind that the young people now entering college were not even
alive when Czechoslovakia existed.) Sure, there's still tension between the United States and Russia. But the recent renegotiation of the START
agreement on nuclear proliferation reinforces the notion that the Cold War is no longer the dominant prism for understanding that bilateral
relationship, much less the Cuban-American one. 5. It doesn't work. Of course, if the embargo were the last outpost of Cold War politics and it
produced results, that might be an argument for continuing it. But scholars
and analysts of economic sanctions have
repeatedly questioned the efficacy of economic statecraft against rogue states unless and until there's been
regime change. And that's because, as one scholar put it, "interfering with the market (whether using sanctions, aid, or other
government policies) has real economic costs, and we rarely know enough about how the target economy
works or how to manipulate the political incentives of the target government to achieve our goals." 6. It's
counter-productive. Isolating Cuba has been more than ineffective. It's also provided the Castro brothers with a
convenient political scapegoat for the country's ongoing economic problems, rather than drawing attention to
their own mismanagement. Moreover, in banning the shipment of information-technology products, the
United States has effectively assisted the Cuban government in shutting out information from the outside
world, yet another potential catalyst for democratization. 7. It's inhumane. If strategic arguments don't persuade you that it's
time to end the embargo, then perhaps humanitarian arguments will. For as anyone who's traveled to the island knows, there's a decidedly
enclave-like feel to those areas of the economy where capitalism has been allowed to flourish in a limited sense (e.g. tourism) and the rest of
the island, which feels very much like the remnant of an exhausted socialist economic model. When I went there in the 1990s with my sister, I
remember the throngs of men who would cluster outside the tourist haunts. They'd hope to persuade visitors like me to pretend to be their
escort so they could sneak into the fancier hotels and nightclubs, which they could not enter otherwise. Horse -- yes, horse-- was a common
offering on menus back then. That situation has apparently eased in recent years as the government has opened up more sectors of the
economy to ordinary Cubans. But the selective nature of that deregulation has only exacerbated economic inequalities. Again, one can argue
that the problem here is one of poor domestic policy choices, rather than the embargo. But it's not clear that ordinary Cubans perceive that
distinction. Moreover, when you stand in the airport and watch tourists disembark with bucket-loads of basic medical supplies, which they
promptly hand over to their (native) friends and family, it's hard not to feel that U.S. policy is perpetuating an injustice. 8. There's oil there.
Another reason to think that it might be time to reconsider our Cuba policy is this natural resource. Cuba
has begun exploratory
drilling in search of oil in its territorial waters, with some reports estimating the island could become a major oil producer -and refiner -- over the next five to 10 years. In an era where geopolitical realities may make places like Venezuela
and the Middle East less reliable sources of oil for the United States, we need all the friends we can get,
particularly when they're right next door. 9. It's unpopular. According to the travel-service provider Orbitz Worldwide, 67 percent of
Americans favor lifting the travel ban, and 72 percent believe that expanding travel to Cuba would
positively impact the lives of Cubans. Orbitz has collected more than 100,000 signatures in favor of
restoring travel to Cuba through its OpenCuba.org drive. And according to Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of the leading proponents of
lifting the embargo, if a vote in Congress were taken secretly, the ban on travel and trade would most likely fall. In other words, the
environment to lift sanctions may be ripe politically in a way that it wasn't even six months ago.
US-Cuban Relations are Benefitting Both Countries
Azel et al, Senior research associate at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American
Studies, 10
(Jose, Joel Brito-executive director of the International Group for Corporate Social Responsibility in Cuba, José Raúl Perales is senior program
associate of the Latin American Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Jorge Piñón is a visiting research fellow
with Florida International University’s Latin American and Caribbean Center Cuban Research Institute. ¶ William Reinsch currently serves as
president of the National Foreign Trade Council. ¶ Steve Richer is public affairs advocate and former board member for the National Tour ¶
Association. ¶ Christopher Sabatini is the senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council ¶ of the Americas (AS/COA.¶ Ignacio
Sánchez is an attorney at DLA Piper who represents national and international clients ¶ on a broad range of issues before the executive
branch, Congress and the federal courts, August 2010, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “The United States and Cuba:
Implications of an Economic Relationship”, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/LAP_Cuba_Implications.pdf, 6/24/13, AL)
The last decade has been marked by a significant ¶ ¶ growth in economic ties between the United States ¶ ¶ and
Cuba, a response to the partial relaxation of ¶ ¶ certain embargo restrictions, explained José Raúl ¶ ¶ Perales, Senior
Program Associate of the Latin ¶ ¶ American Program. This has been particularly true ¶ ¶ within the agriculture and
tourism industries. For ¶ ¶ instance, in 2000 the United States implemented ¶ ¶ the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act; in the following eight years bilateral agricultural trade and farm sales more than
tripled. Furthermore, since 2003, the United States has supplied annually more agricultural products to
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
176
Cuba than any other nation; from 2003 to 2008 an estimated 35 percent of Cuba’s agricultural imports
came from the United States. In terms of tourism, it is estimated that, by eliminating ¶ ¶ current restrictions on U.S. travel
to Cuba, the ¶ ¶ island nation could expect 500,000 to one million ¶ ¶ tourism-related U.S. visits per annum. This would ¶
¶ not only be a boost to the U.S. travel industry, it ¶ ¶ would also fundamentally transform the landscape ¶ ¶ of the entire
Caribbean tourism industry. These ¶ ¶ data hint at the many benefits to a deeper U.S.-¶ ¶ Cuban
economic relationship.
Latin America Ties have already benefitted the U.S. with trade and culture
Tisdall, Assistant editor of the Guardian, 13
(Simon, 3/5/13, the Guardian, “Death of Hugo Chavez brings chance of fresh start for
US and Latin America”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugochavez-dead-us-latin-america, 6/24/13, AL)
The political climate seems propitious. Economic
and cultural ties are also strengthening dramatically. Trade between the US and Latin
by 82% between 1998 and 2009. In 2011 alone, exports and imports rose by a massive 20% in
both directions."We do three times more business with Latin America than with China and twice as
much business with Colombia [as] with Russia," an Obama official told Julia Sweig of the US Council on Foreign Relations. Latinos now
comprise 15% of the US population; the US is the world's second largest Spanish-speaking country (after Mexico).A move by Obama to end travel
restrictions and the trade embargo on Cuba would be applauded across the region, explode old
stereotypes about gringo oppressors, and help build confidence with Venezuela, the Castro regime's key backer,
America grew
she suggested.
Only lifting the embargo can solve for the trade deficit caused by it; no alt causes
means lifting the embargo is uniquely key
Shipping Digest ‘07
(Shipping Digest, 4/9/07, “Commerce with Cuba”, L-N 6/23/13, PD)
To the best of my recollection, no presidential nominee of either major political party has called for
the lifting of the embargo. In the early years, it was because they were afraid of being perceived as soft
on Communism. All that time, however, we continued to trade with the Soviet Union. Moreover, after
President Nixon's historic visit to China in 1972 and especially after President Carter established formal
diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1978, it was evident that the U.S. was quite happy to trade with
Communist powers. Cuba, however, was always a different story. The reason for this is the political clout
of the anti-Castro Cuban community, especially in Florida, and we all know the impact of that state in
presidential elections. Perhaps one or more candidates this time around will have the courage to call for
lifting the embargo, or perhaps circumstances will change enough in Cuba to make the issue moot. Still,
the question is: Why wait? There are no good reasons for doing so, but there are at least 10 good
reasons for lifting the embargo. These are listed in a report issued in January by the Center for
Democracy in the Americas and a business coalition called USA Engage, which opposes unilateral trade
sanctions. From a business perspective, the most serious impact has been the harm to U.S. exporters
of goods and services. A report by the International Trade Commission estimated that the embargo
costs U.S. exporters more than $1 billion annually. So who's filling the void? Among others, China. It's
not just in consumer goods where U.S. companies are losing out, but also in capital goods such as
locomotives. For example, Cuba purchased 100 Chinese locomotives for $130 million. Chinese
equipment is being used to revamp Cuban ports. The trade ban also hurts cargo carriers such as
Crowley Liner Services. Travel restrictions not only infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens, but they mean
lost business for airlines and cruise operators. In addition, the embargo bans oil exploration by U.S.
companies. Meanwhile, companies based in Spain, Norway, India and Venezuela have won the right to
explore for oil in Cuba's offshore waters. To sum up: The embargo makes no sense; Bush should lift it.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
177
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
178
Ext – Solves Trade Relations
Plan key to Cuban and US economies and is a prerequisite to political reform.
***Also: Plan popular, Florida not key, GOP supports plan, EE key to societal change***
Bandow, Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute, 11/11
(Doug, December 11, 2012The National Interest, “Time to End the Cuban Embargo,”
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-pointless-cuba-embargo-7834?page=1, 6/23/13. RJ)
But the political environment is changing. A younger, more liberal generation of Cuban Americans with no
memory of life in Cuba is coming to the fore. Said Wayne Smith, a diplomat who served in Havana: “for the first time in years, maybe there
is some chance for a change in policy.” And there are now many more new young Cuban Americans who support a more sensible approach to
Cuba.¶ Support for the Republican Party also is falling. According to some exit polls Barack Obama narrowly carried the Cuban American
community in November, after receiving little more than a third of the vote four years ago. He received 60 percent of the votes of Cuban
Americans born in the United States.¶ Barack Obama increased his votes among Cuban Americans after liberalizing contacts with the island.
He also would
have won the presidency without Florida, demonstrating that the state may not be essential
Ryan has defended
the embargo in recent years, that appears to reflect ambition rather than conviction. Over the years he voted at least three times to
lift the embargo, explaining: “The embargo doesnt work. It is a failed policy. It was probably justified when the Soviet
politically.¶ Today even the GOP is no longer reliable. For instance, though Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul
Union existed and posed a threat through Cuba. I think its become more of a crutch for Castro to use to repress his people. All the problems he
has, he blames the American embargo.Ӧ 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 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
179
UQ – Cuban Econ Low
Cuban Economy in Shambles Now
Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and
Director for Latin America Studies, July/August ‘13
(Julia E., July / August ’13, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/cuba-after-communism/p30991,
Accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
Nevertheless, Cuba faces serious obstacles in its quest for greater economic vitality. Unlike China and
Vietnam at the start of their reform efforts, Cuba is an underdeveloped country with developed-world
problems. Not only is the population aging (18 percent of the population is over 60), but the country's
economy is heavily tilted toward the services sector. When Vietnam began its doi moi (renovation)
economic reforms in 1986, services accounted for about 33 percent of GDP, whereas the productive
base represented nearly 67 percent. By contrast, services in Cuba make up close to 75 percent of the
island's GDP -- the result of 20-plus years of severe industrial decay and low rates of savings and
investment. Service exports (mainly of health-care professionals), combined with tourism and
remittances, constitute the country's primary defense against a sustained balance-of-payments deficit.
Cuban officials and economists recognize this structural weakness and have emphasized the need to
boost exports and foster a more dynamic domestic market. Yet so far, the state has not been able to
remedy the imbalance. In the sugar industry, once a mainstay, production continues to flounder
despite a recent uptick in global prices and new Brazilian investment. Meanwhile, a corruption scandal
and declining world prices have weakened the nickel industry, leading to the closing of one of the
island's three processing facilities. More broadly, Cuban productivity remains anemic, and the country
has been unable to capitalize on its highly educated work force. Although important, the expansion of
the small-business sector cannot resolve these core issues. There are now 181 legal categories for selfemployment, but they are concentrated almost exclusively in the services sector, including proprietors
of independent restaurants, food stands, and bed-and-breakfasts. Start-up funds are scarce, fees for
required licenses are high, and some of the legal categories are senselessly specific. It also remains
unclear whether the chance to earn a legitimate profit will lure black-market enterprises out into the
open.
Cuban Economy Low Now—Indicators Prove
Adams, Times Latin America Correspondent, ‘09
(David, 8/7/09, http://www.tampabay.com/news/world/in-cuba-the-economy-is-sobad-the-shantytowns-are-looking-good/1025725, Accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
Cuba's economic crisis is hitting the island hard. Faced with a record post-revolution $11-billion trade
deficit because of the dramatic rise in food and fuel import costs, the government has had to slash
spending, cutting back on monthly food rations, subsidized lunches in workplace cafe-terias, housing
construction, public transportation schedules, as well as limiting air conditioning to only five hours each
afternoon in state stores and offices. Cuba has long blamed the U.S. economic embargo for cutting it
off from cheaper import sources, as well as international lending organizations. But Cuban officials
recognize they need to improve housing and state salaries. In a speech in July 2007, Raúl Castro said a
Cuban state salary was "clearly insufficient to satisfy all necessities." He noted this brought "social
indiscipline" and black marketeering. Due to the economic crisis, the government appears to be taking
a lenient approach to the squatters. A law that requires illegal squatters to be evicted and returned to
their home towns is not being enforced. Nor is the state doing anything to prevent squatters from
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
180
stringing illegal lines to state utility poles to get free electricity. Indeed, Castro has publicly advocated
formalizing the squatter communities and incorporating them into local municipalities.
Cuban Debt Increasing – Empirics Prove
Frank, Columnist for Reuters, 08
(Marc, 12/18/08, http://havanajournal.com/business/entry/cuba-delaying-debtpayments-to-france-and-businesses/, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
Three hurricanes and the global financial crisis have left Cuba strapped for cash, forcing the
government to juggle debt payments and seek new financing, diplomatic and business sources say.
France is the latest government to receive notice from Cuba that it needs to reschedule upcoming debt
payments, European diplomats said. “A few months ago, Cuba told Japan and Germany it could not
meet debt payments but those problems apparently have been worked out. Now France has received
the same news,” a diplomat said. The information was confirmed by French business sources. Cuba,
whose foreign debt rose by $1.1 billion to $16.5 billion in 2007, recently rescheduled some debt with
China. The government did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment, but Cuba’s
planning and economy minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez, recently said the island, like all countries in the
region, faces a difficult year ahead due to the global financial crisis. Various foreign businessmen, who
like the diplomats asked that their names not be used, said payments had slowed from Cuban state-run
banks, with cash transfers that usually took 48 hours now sometimes put off for weeks. “It appears
they do not have the cash on hand so they delay and then pay you and delay payment to someone else,”
one Western businessman said.
Cuban Economy Suffering Now
Michigan State University, GlobalEdge Research Team, NDG
(Post 11, http://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/cuba/economy, accessed 6/30/13,
ARH)
The Cuban economy suffers first and foremost from a lack of productivity and an overdependence on
the external sector. Cuba suffered a significant decline in gross domestic product of at least 35%
between 1989 and 1993 as the loss of Soviet subsidies laid bare the economy's fundamental
weaknesses. To alleviate the economic crisis, in 1993 and 1994 the government introduced a few
market-oriented reforms, including opening to tourism, allowing some foreign investment, legalizing the
dollar, and authorizing self-employment for some 150 occupations. These measures resulted in modest
economic growth, although the official statistics are deficient and provide an incomplete measure of
Cuba's real economic situation. From 2000 to 2009, Cuba experienced a series of severe economic
disruptions, including lower sugar and nickel prices, increases in petroleum costs, devastating
hurricanes in 2001, 2004, and 2008, a major drought in the eastern half of the island, increasing
external debt, liquidity issues, and stagnant or decreasing agricultural and industrial productivity.
Significant economic assistance from Venezuela, and to a lesser degree China, has helped keep the
Cuban economy afloat. Living conditions in 2010 remained well below 1989 levels. Moreover, the gap
in the standard of living is widening between those with access to convertible pesos and those without.
Jobs that can earn salaries in convertible pesos or tips from foreign businesses and tourists have become
highly desirable. Over $1 billion in yearly remittances exacerbates the gap. Prolonged austerity and
the state-controlled economy's inefficiency in providing adequate goods and services have created
conditions for a flourishing informal economy in Cuba. As the variety and amount of goods available in
state-run peso stores has declined and prices at convertible peso stores remain unaffordable to most
of the population, Cubans have turned increasingly to the black market to obtain needed food,
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
181
clothing, and household items. Pilferage of items from the work place to sell on the black market or
illegally offering services on the sidelines of official employment is common. A report by an independent
economist and opposition leader speculates that more than 40% of the Cuban economy operates in the
informal sector. In the last few years, the government has carried out an anti-corruption campaign,
including the creation of a Comptroller General’s Office, repeated street-level crackdowns, and ongoing
ideological appeals. So far, these measures have yielded limited if any results.
182
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Solves – FDI
The Embargo prevents FDI which is key to maintaining the entire Cuban economic
base.
Human Rights Sub-commission, human rights think tank, 03
(Human Rights Sub-Commission, 2/2003, CETIM (Europe- Third World Center), “The
Effects of the US embargo against Cuba and the reasons of the urgent need to lift it,”
http://www.cetim.ch/oldsite/2003/03js04w4.htm, 6/24/13, ND)
If it affects negatively all the sectors 3, the
embargo directly impedes - besides the exportations - the driving forces of the
Cuban economic recovery, at the top of which are tourism, foreign direct investments (FDI) and currency transfers.
Many European subsidiaries of US firms had recently to break off negotiations for the management of hotels,
because their lawyers anticipated that the contracts would be sanctioned under the provisions of the "Helms-Burton
law". In addition, the buy-out by US groups of European cruising societies, which moored their vessels in Cuba, cancelled the projects in 200203. The obstacles imposed by the United States, in violation of the Chicago Convention on civil aviation, to the sale or
the rental of planes, to the supply of kerosene and to access to new technologies (e-reservation, radio-localization), will
lead to a loss of 150 million dollars in 2003. The impact on the FDI is also very unfavourable. The institutes
of promotion of FDI in Cuba received more than 500 projects of cooperation from US companies, but none of
them could be realized - not even in the pharmaceutical and biotechnological industry, where Cuba has a very
attractive potential. The transfer of currencies from the United States is limited (less than 100 dollars a month per family) and
some European banks had to restrain their commitment under the pressure of the US which let them know that
indemnities would be required if the credits were maintained. In Cuba, the embargo penalizes the activities of the bank and
finance, insurance, petrol, chemical products, construction, infrastructures and transports, shipyard,
agriculture and fishing, electronics and computing…, but also for the export sectors (where the US property
prevailed before 1959), such as those of sugar, whose recovery is impeded by the interdiction of access to the fist international stock exchange
of raw materials (New York), of nickel, tobacco, rum.
183
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Impact – Cuban Black Market
Plan key to Cuban economy and reform and destroys the Cuban black market
Cave, NY Times Correspondent based in Mexico City, 11/19
(Damien, November 19 2013, New York Times, “Easing of Restrictions in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S.
Embargo,” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-foreasing-embargo.html?pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print , Accessed 6/24/13. RJ)
HAVANA — “If I could just get a lift,” said Francisco López, imagining the addition of a hydraulic elevator as he stood by a rusted Russian sedan
in his mechanic’s workshop here. All he needed was an investment from his brother in Miami or from a Cuban friend there who already sneaks
in brake pads and other parts for him.¶ The problem: Washington’s 50-year-old trade embargo, which prohibits even the most basic business
dealings across the 90 miles separating Cuba from the United States. Indeed, every time Mr. López’s friend in Florida accepts payment for a car
part destined for Cuba, he puts himself at risk of a fine of up to $65,000.¶ With Cuba cautiously introducing free-market changes that have
legalized hundreds of thousands of small private businesses over the past two years, new economic bonds between Cuba and the United States
have formed, creating new challenges, new possibilities — and a more complicated debate over the embargo.¶ The longstanding logic has been
that broad sanctions are necessary to suffocate the totalitarian government of Fidel and Raúl Castro. Now, especially for many Cubans who had
previously stayed on the sidelines in the battle over Cuba policy, a new argument against the embargo is gaining currency — that
the
tentative move toward capitalism by the Cuban government could be sped up with more assistance
from Americans.¶ Even as defenders of the embargo warn against providing the Cuban government with “economic lifelines,” some
Cubans and exiles are advocating a fresh approach. The Obama administration already showed an openness to
engagement with Cuba in 2009 by removing restrictions on travel and remittances for Cuban Americans. But with Fidel Castro, 86, retired and
President Raúl Castro, 81, leading a bureaucracy that is divided on the pace and scope of change, many have begun urging President Obama to
go further and update American policy by putting a priority on assistance for Cubans seeking more economic independence from the
government.¶ “Maintaining
this embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen and embolden
the hard-liners,” said Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban exile and co-chairman of the Cuba Study Group in Washington, which advocates
engagement with Cuba. “What we should be doing is helping the reformers.”¶ Any easing would be a gamble. Free
enterprise may not necessarily lead to the embargo’s goal of free elections, especially because Cuba has said it wants to replicate the paths of
Vietnam and China, where the loosening of economic restrictions has not led to political change. Indeed, Cuban officials have become adept at
using previous American efforts to soften the embargo to their advantage, taking a cut of dollars converted into pesos and marking up the
prices at state-owned stores.¶ And Cuba has a long history of tossing ice on warming relations. The latest example is the jailing of Alan Gross, a
State Department contractor who has spent nearly three years behind bars for distributing satellite telephone equipment to Jewish groups in
Havana.¶ In Washington, Mr. Gross is seen as the main impediment to an easing of the embargo, but there are also limits to what the president
could do without Congressional action. The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act conditioned the waiving of sanctions on the introduction of democratic
changes inside Cuba. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act also requires that the embargo remain until Cuba has a transitional or democratically elected
government. Obama administration officials say they have not given up, and could move if the president decides to act on his own. Officials say
that under the Treasury Department’s licensing and regulation-writing authority, there is room for significant modification. Following the legal
logic of Mr. Obama’s changes in 2009, further expansions in travel are possible along with new allowances for investment or imports and
exports, especially if narrowly applied to Cuban businesses.¶ Even these adjustments — which could also include travel for all Americans and
looser rules for ships engaged in trade with Cuba, according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Cuba Study Group — would probably mean
a fierce political fight. The handful of Cuban-Americans in Congress for whom the embargo is sacred oppose looser rules. ¶ When asked about
Cuban entrepreneurs who are seeking more American support, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Florida Republican who is chairwoman
of the House Foreign Relations Committee, proposed an even tighter embargo.¶ “The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact,
should be strengthened, and not be altered,” she wrote in an e-mail. “Responsible nations must not buy into the facade the dictatorship is
trying to create by announcing ‘reforms’ while, in reality, it’s tightening its grip on its people.”¶ Many Cubans agree that their government cares
more about control than economic growth. Business owners complain that inspectors pounce when they see signs of success and demand
receipts to prove that supplies were not stolen from the government, a common practice here. One restaurant owner in Havana said he
received a large fine for failing to produce a receipt for plastic wrap.¶ Cuban
officials say the shortages fueling the black
market are caused by the embargo. But mostly they prefer to discuss the policy in familiar terms. They take reporter after
reporter to hospitals of frail infants, where American medical exports are allowed under a humanitarian exception. Few companies bother,
however, largely because of a rule, unique to Cuba, requiring that the American companies do on-site monitoring to make sure products are
not used for weapons.¶ “The Treasury Department is asking me, in a children’s hospital, if I use, for example, catheters for military uses —
chemical, nuclear or biological,” said Dr. Eugenio Selman, director of the William Soler Pediatric Cardiology Center.¶ As for the embargo’s
restriction on investment, Cuban officials have expressed feelings that are more mixed. At a meeting in New York in September with a group
called Cuban Americans for Engagement, Cuba’s foreign minister, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, said business investment was not a priority.¶ “Today
the economic development of Cuba does not demand investments of $100,000, $200,000, $300,000,” he said, according to the group’s account
of the meeting. Rather, he called for hundreds of millions of dollars to expand a local port.¶ Owners of Cuba’s small businesses, mostly oneperson operations at this point, say they know that the government would most likely find ways to profit from wider economic relations with
the United States. The response to the informal imports that come from Miami in the suitcases of relatives, for instance, has been higher
customs duties.¶ Still, in a country where Cubans “resolve” their way around government restrictions every day (private deals with customs
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
184
agents are common), many Cubans anticipate real benefits should the United States change course. Mr. López, a
meticulous mechanic who wears plastic gloves to avoid dirtying his fingers, said legalizing imports and investment would create a flood of the
supplies that businesses needed, overwhelming the government’s controls while lowering prices and creating more work apart from the state.¶
Other Cubans, including political dissidents, say softening the embargo would increase the pressure for more rapid change by undermining one
of the government’s main excuses for failing to provide freedom, economic opportunity or just basic supplies.¶ “Last month, someone asked
me to redo their kitchen, but I told them I couldn’t do it because I didn’t have the materials,” said Pedro José, 49, a licensed carpenter in
Havana who did not want his last name published to avoid government pressure.¶ “Look around — Cuba is destroyed,” he added, waving a
hand toward a colonial building blushing with circles of faded pink paint from the 1950s. “There is a lot of work to be done.”
Protectionism unleashes multiple scenarios for global nuclear war
Panzner, Prof. at the New York Institute of Finance, 9
(Michael Panzner, Prof. at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets who has worked
in New York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and JPMorgan Chase, Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future
from Economic Collapse, 2009, p. 136-138, 6-31-13)
Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth protectionist legislation
the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat
economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn into a
prolonged and devastating global disaster, But if history is any guide, those lessons will have been
long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on
like
trade, finance, investment, and immigration will almost certainly intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the crossborder movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile,
many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from
decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange, foreign individuals and companies
seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the (heap thanks to a rapidly
depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and
markets, disrupting global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence
and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through
arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife,
The rise in
isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous
confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of production that
or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly.
must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic
necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand
Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment
and natural resources will become more commonplace. Around the world, such tensions will give rise
to full-scale military encounters, often with minimal provocation. In some instances, economic
conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious
differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by
channeling frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap
technology and the waning threat of American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the
frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent
conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will
also take on a new, more healed sense of urgency. China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture
toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part,
seems constantly out of kilter with supply.
may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a
political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an "intense confrontation" between the United States and China is
"inevitable" at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences
Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate
quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing
biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunkerbusting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up conflicts between
Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.
will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Democracy**
185
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
186
Module – Democracy
The Embargo supports the regime, and prevents the spread of democracy.
Lloyd, Correspondant for Politics Daily, 11
[Delia, Summer 2011, Politics Daily, “Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba
Embargo,”http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cubaembargo/ EJH]
It's counter-productive. Isolating Cuba has been more than ineffective. It's also provided the Castro
brothers with a convenient political scapegoat for the country's ongoing economic problems, rather
than drawing attention to their own mismanagement. Moreover, in banning the shipment of
information-technology products, the United States has effectively assisted the Cuban government in
shutting out information from the outside world, yet another potential catalyst for democratization.
Democracy promotion is key to US leadership and conflict de-escalation
Lynn-Jones, Editor of International Security for Belfer Center Studies in International
Security, 98
(Sean, “Why the United States Should Spread Democracy,” Center for Science and International Affairs,
Harvard University, March 1998,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democra
cy.html, 6-30-13)
C. America''s Goal: Liberal Democracy
Given the variety of definitions of democracy and the distinction between democracy and liberalism,
what type of government should the United States attempt to spread? Should it try to spread
democracy, defined procedurally, liberalism, or both? Ultimately, U.S. policies should aim to encourage
the spread of liberal democracy. Policies to promote democracy should attempt to increase the
number of regimes that respect the individual liberties that lie at the heart of liberalism and elect their
leaders. The United States therefore should attempt to build support for liberal principles-many of
which are enshrined in international human-rights treaties-as well as encouraging states to hold free
and fair elections.
Supporting the spread of liberal democracy does not, however, mean that the United States should give
the promotion of liberalism priority over the growth of electoral democracy. In most cases, support for
electoral democracy can contribute to the spread of liberalism and liberal democracy. Free and fair
elections often remove leaders who are the biggest impediments to the spread of democracy. In Burma,
for example, the people would almost certainly remove the authoritarian SLORC regime from power if
they had a choice at the ballot box. In South Africa, Haiti, and Chile, for example, elections removed
antidemocratic rulers and advanced the process of democratization. In most cases, the United States
should support elections even in countries that are not fully liberal. Elections will generally initiate a
process of change toward democratization. American policy should not let the perfect be the enemy of
the good by insisting that countries embrace liberal principles before holding elections. Such a policy
could be exploited by authoritarian rulers to justify their continued hold on power and to delay elections
that they might lose. In addition, consistent U.S. support for electoral democracy will help to bolster the
emerging international norm that leaders should be accountable to their people. Achieving this goal is
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
187
worth the risk that some distasteful leaders will win elections and use these victories at the ballot box to
legitimize their illiberal rule.
The United States also should attempt to build support for liberal principles, both before and after other
countries hold elections. Policies that advance liberalism are harder to develop and pursue than those
that aim to persuade states to hold free and fair elections, but the United States can promote liberalism
as well as electoral democracy, as I argue below.
II. The Benefits of the Spread of Democracy
Most Americans assume that democracy is a good thing and that the spread of democracy will be
beneficial. Because the virtues of democracy are taken for granted, they are rarely fully enumerated and
considered. Democracy is not an unalloyed good, so it is important not to overstate or misrepresent the
benefits of democratization. Nevertheless, the spread of democracy has many important benefits. This
section enumerates how the spread of democracy will improve the lives of the citizens of new
democracies, contribute to international peace, and directly advance the national interests of the United
States.
A. Democracy is Good for the Citizens of New Democracies
The United States should attempt to spread democracy because people generally live better lives under
democratic governments. Compared to inhabitants of nondemocracies, citizens of democracies enjoy
greater individual liberty, political stability, freedom from governmental violence, enhanced quality of
life, and a much lower risk of suffering a famine. Skeptics will immediately ask: Why should the United
States attempt to improve the lives of non-Americans? Shouldn''t this country focus on its own
problems and interests? There are at least three answers to these questions.
First, as human beings, American should and do feel some obligation to improve the well-being of other
human beings. The bonds of common humanity do not stop at the borders of the United States.19 To be
sure, these bonds and obligations are limited by the competitive nature of the international system. In a
world where the use of force remains possible, no government can afford to pursue a foreign policy
based on altruism. The human race is not about to embrace a cosmopolitan moral vision in which
borders and national identities become irrelevant. But there are many possibilities for action motivated
by concern for individuals in other countries. In the United States, continued public concern over human
rights in other countries, as well as governmental and nongovernmental efforts to relieve hunger,
poverty, and suffering overseas, suggest that Americans accept some bonds of common humanity and
feel some obligations to foreigners. The emergence of the so-called "CNN Effect"-the tendency for
Americans to be aroused to action by television images of suffering people overseas-is further evidence
that cosmopolitan ethical sentiments exist. If Americans care about improving the lives of the citizens of
other countries, then the case for promoting democracy grows stronger to the extent that promoting
democracy is an effective means to achieve this end.
Second, Americans have a particular interest in promoting the spread of liberty. The United States was
founded on the principle of securing liberty for its citizens. Its founding documents and institutions all
emphasize that liberty is a core value. Among the many observers and political scientists who make this
point is Samuel Huntington, who argues that America''s "identity as a nation is inseparable from its
commitment to liberal and democratic values."20 As I argue below, one of the most important benefits
of the spread of democracy-and especially of liberal democracy-is an expansion of human liberty. Given
its founding principles and very identity, the United States has a large stake in advancing its core value of
liberty. As Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott has argued: "The United States is uniquely and selfconsciously a country founded on a set of ideas, and ideals, applicable to people everywhere. The
Founding Fathers declared that all were created equal-not just those in Britain''s 13 American coloniesand that to secure the `unalienable rights'' of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, people had the
right to establish governments that derive `their just powers from the consent of the governed.''"21
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
188
Third, improvements in the lives of individuals in other countries matter to Americans because the
United States cannot insulate itself from the world. It may be a cliché to say that the world is
becoming more interdependent, but it is undeniable that changes in communications technologies,
trade flows, and the environment have opened borders and created a more interconnected world.
These trends give the United States a greater stake in the fate of other societies, because widespread
misery abroad may create political turmoil, economic instability, refugee flows, and environmental
damage that will affect Americans. As I argue below in my discussion of how promoting democracy
serves U.S. interests, the spread of democracy will directly advance the national interests of the
United States. The growing interconnectedness of international relations means that the United States
also has an indirect stake in the well-being of those in other countries, because developments overseas
can have unpredictable consequences for the United States.
For these three reasons, at least, Americans should care about how the spread of democracy can
improve the lives of people in other countries.
1. Democracy Leads to Liberty and Liberty is Good
The first way in which the spread of democracy enhances the lives of those who live in democracies is
by promoting individual liberty, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom
to own private property.22 Respect for the liberty of individuals is an inherent feature of democratic
politics. As Samuel Huntington has written, liberty is "the peculiar virtue of democracy."23 A democratic
political process based on electoral competition depends on freedom of expression of political views
and freedom to make electoral choices. Moreover, governments that are accountable to the public are
less likely to deprive their citizens of human rights. The global spread of democracy is likely to bring
greater individual liberty to more and more people. Even imperfect and illiberal democracies tend to
offer more liberty than autocracies, and liberal democracies are very likely to promote liberty. Freedom
House''s 1997 survey of "Freedom in the World" found that 79 out of 118 democracies could be
classified as "free" and 39 were "partly free" and, of those, 29 qualified as "high partly free." In contrast,
only 20 of the world''s 73 nondemocracies were "partly free" and 53 were "not free."24
The case for the maximum possible amount of individual freedom can be made on the basis of utilitarian
calculations or in terms of natural rights. The utilitarian case for increasing the amount of individual
liberty rests on the belief that increased liberty will enable more people to realize their full human
potential, which will benefit not only themselves but all of humankind. This view holds that greater
liberty will allow the human spirit to flourish, thereby unleashing greater intellectual, artistic, and
productive energies that will ultimately benefit all of humankind. The rights-based case for liberty, on
the other hand, does not focus on the consequences of increased liberty, but instead argues that all men
and women, by virtue of their common humanity, have a right to freedom. This argument is most
memorably expressed in the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be selfevident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ..."
The virtues of greater individual liberty are not self-evident. Various political ideologies argue against
making liberty the paramount goal of any political system. Some do not deny that individual liberty is an
important goal, but call for limiting it so that other goals may be achieved. Others place greater
emphasis on obligations to the community. The British Fabian Socialist Sidney Webb, for example,
articulated this view clearly: "The perfect and fitting development of each individual is not necessarily
the utmost and highest cultivation of his own personality, but the filling, in the best possible way, of his
humble function in the great social machine."25 To debate these issues thoroughly would require a
paper far longer than this one.26 The short response to most critiques of liberty is that there appears to
be a universal demand for liberty among human beings. Particularly as socioeconomic development
elevates societies above subsistence levels, individuals desire more choice and autonomy in their lives.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
189
More important, most political systems that have been founded on principles explicitly opposed to
liberty have tended to devolve into tyrannies or to suffer economic, political, or social collapse.
2. Liberal Democracies are Less Likely to Use Violence Against Their Own People.
Second, America should spread liberal democracy because the citizens of liberal democracies are less
likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments.27 These two findings
are supported by many studies, but particularly by the work of R.J. Rummel. Rummel finds that
democracies-by which he means liberal democracies-between 1900 and 1987 saw only 0.14% of their
populations (on average) die annually in internal violence. The corresponding figure for authoritarian
regimes was 0.59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%.28 Rummel also finds that citizens of liberal
democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments. Totalitarian and authoritarian
regimes have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of
civilians in the twentieth century. The states that have killed millions of their citizens all have been
authoritarian or totalitarian: the Soviet Union, the People''s Republic of China, Nazi Germany, Nationalist
China, Imperial Japan, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Democracies have virtually never
massacred their own citizens on a large scale, although they have killed foreign civilians during wartime.
The American and British bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan, U.S. atrocities in Vietnam,
massacres of Filipinos during the guerrilla war that followed U.S. colonization of the Philippines after
1898, and French killings of Algerians during the Algerian War are some prominent examples.29
There are two reasons for the relative absence of civil violence in democracies: (1) Democratic political
systems-especially those of liberal democracies constrain the power of governments, reducing their
ability to commit mass murders of their own populations. As Rummel concludes, "Power kills, absolute
power kills absolutely ... The more freely a political elite can control the power of the state apparatus,
the more thoroughly it can repress and murder its subjects."30 (2) Democratic polities allow opposition
to be expressed openly and have regular processes for the peaceful transfer of power. If all participants
in the political process remain committed to democratic principles, critics of the government need not
stage violent revolutions and governments will not use violence to repress opponents.31
3. Democracy Enhances Long-Run Economic Performance
A third reason for promoting democracy is that democracies tend to enjoy greater prosperity over long
periods of time. As democracy spreads, more individuals are likely to enjoy greater economic benefits.
Democracy does not necessarily usher in prosperity, although some observers claim that "a close
correlation with prosperity" is one of the "overwhelming advantages" of democracy.32 Some
democracies, including India and the Philippines, have languished economically, at least until the last
few years. Others are among the most prosperous societies on earth. Nevertheless, over the long haul
democracies generally prosper. As Mancur Olson points out: "It is no accident that the countries that
have reached the highest level of economic performance across generations are all stable
democracies."33
Authoritarian regimes often compile impressive short-run economic records. For several decades, the
Soviet Union''s annual growth in gross national product (GNP) exceeded that of the United States,
leading Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to pronounce "we will bury you." China has posted doubledigit annual GNP increases in recent years. But autocratic countries rarely can sustain these rates of
growth for long. As Mancur Olson notes, "experience shows that relatively poor countries can grow
extraordinarily rapidly when they have a strong dictator who happens to have unusually good economic
policies, such growth lasts only for the ruling span of one or two dictators."34 The Soviet Union was
unable to sustain its rapid growth; its economic failings ultimately caused the country to disintegrate in
the throes of political and economic turmoil. Most experts doubt that China will continue its rapid
economic expansion. Economist Jagdish Bhagwati argues that "no one can maintain these growth rates
in the long term. Sooner or later China will have to rejoin the human race."35 Some observers predict
that the stresses of high rates of economic growth will cause political fragmentation in China.36
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
190
Why do democracies perform better than autocracies over the long run? Two reasons are particularly
persuasive explanations. First, democracies-especially liberal democracies-are more likely to have
market economies, and market economies tend to produce economic growth over the long run. Most of
the world''s leading economies thus tend to be market economies, including the United States, Japan,
the "tiger" economies of Southeast Asia, and the members of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development. Two recent studies suggest that there is a direct connection between
economic liberalization and economic performance. Freedom House conducted a World Survey of
Economic Freedom for 1995-96, which evaluated 80 countries that account for 90% of the world''s
population and 99% of the world''s wealth on the basis of criteria such as the right to own property,
operate a business, or belong to a trade union. It found that the countries rated "free" generated 81% of
the world''s output even though they had only 17% of the world''s population.37 A second recent study
confirms the connection between economic freedom and economic growth. The Heritage Foundation
has constructed an Index of Economic Freedom that looks at 10 key areas: trade policy, taxation,
government intervention, monetary policy, capital flows and foreign investment, banking policy, wage
and price controls, property rights, regulation, and black market activity. It has found that countries
classified as "free" had annual 1980-1993 real per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (expressed in
terms of purchasing power parities) growth rates of 2.88%. In "mostly free" countries the rate was
0.97%, in "mostly not free" ones -0.32%, and in "repressed" countries -1.44%.38 Of course, some
democracies do not adopt market economies and some autocracies do, but liberal democracies
generally are more likely to pursue liberal economic policies.
Second, democracies that embrace liberal principles of government are likely to create a stable
foundation for long-term economic growth. Individuals will only make long-term investments when
they are confident that their investments will not be expropriated. These and other economic decisions
require assurances that private property will be respected and that contracts will be enforced. These
conditions are likely to be met when an impartial court system exists and can require individuals to
enforce contracts. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has argued that: "The guiding mechanism
of a free market economy ... is a bill of rights, enforced by an impartial judiciary."39 These conditions
also happen to be those that are necessary to maintain a stable system of free and fair elections and to
uphold liberal principles of individual rights. Mancur Olson thus points out that "the conditions that are
needed to have the individual rights needed for maximum economic development are exactly the same
conditions that are needed to have a lasting democracy. ... the same court system, independent
judiciary, and respect for law and individual rights that are needed for a lasting democracy are also
required for security of property and contract rights."40 Thus liberal democracy is the basis for longterm economic growth.
A third reason may operate in some circumstances: democratic governments are more likely to have the
political legitimacy necessary to embark on difficult and painful economic reforms.41 This factor is
particularly likely to be important in former communist countries, but it also appears to have played a
role in the decisions India and the Philippines have taken in recent years to pursue difficult economic
reforms.42
4. Democracies Never Have Famines
Fourth, the United States should spread democracy because the citizens of democracies do not suffer
from famines. The economist Amartya Sen concludes that "one of the remarkable facts in the terrible
history of famine is that no substantial famine has ever occurred in a country with a democratic form
of government and a relatively free press."43 This striking empirical regularity has been overshadowed
by the apparent existence of a "democratic peace" (see below), but it provides a powerful argument
for promoting democracy. Although this claim has been most closely identified with Sen, other scholars
who have studied famines and hunger reach similar conclusions. Joseph Collins, for example, argues
that: "Wherever political rights for all citizens truly flourish, people will see to it that, in due course, they
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
191
share in control over economic resources vital to their survival. Lasting food security thus requires real
and sustained democracy."44 Most of the countries that have experienced severe famines in recent
decades have been among the world''s least democratic: the Soviet Union (Ukraine in the early 1930s),
China, Ethiopia, Somalia, Cambodia and Sudan. Throughout history, famines have occurred in many
different types of countries, but never in a democracy.
Democracies do not experience famines for two reasons. First, in democracies governments are
accountable to their populations and their leaders have electoral incentives to prevent mass starvation.
The need to be reelected impels politicians to ensure that their people do not starve. As Sen points out,
"the plight of famine victims is easy to politicize" and "the effectiveness of democracy in the prevention
of famine has tended to depend on the politicization of the plight of famine victims, through the process
of public discussion, which generates political solidarity."45 On the other hand, authoritarian and
totalitarian regimes are not accountable to the public; they are less likely to pay a political price for
failing to prevent famines. Moreover, authoritarian and totalitarian rulers often have political incentives
to use famine as a means of exterminating their domestic opponents.
Second, the existence of a free press and the free flow of information in democracies prevents famine
by serving as an early warning system on the effects of natural catastrophes such as floods and droughts
that may cause food scarcities. A free press that criticizes government policies also can publicize the true
level of food stocks and reveal problems of distribution that might cause famines even when food is
plentiful.46 Inadequate information has contributed to several famines. During the 1958-61 famine in
China that killed 20-30 million people, the Chinese authorities overestimated the country''s grain
reserves by 100 million metric tons. This disaster later led Mao Zedong to concede that "Without
democracy, you have no understanding of what is happening down below."47 The 1974 Bangladesh
famine also could have been avoided if the government had had better information. The food supply
was high, but floods, unemployment, and panic made it harder for those in need to obtain food.48
The two factors that prevent famines in democracies-electoral incentives and the free flow of
information-are likely to be present even in democracies that do not have a liberal political culture.
These factors exist when leaders face periodic elections and when the press is free to report information
that might embarrass the government. A full-fledged liberal democracy with guarantees of civil liberties,
a relatively free economic market, and an independent judiciary might be even less likely to suffer
famines, but it appears that the rudiments of electoral democracy will suffice to prevent famines.
The ability of democracies to avoid famines cannot be attributed to any tendency of democracies to fare
better economically. Poor democracies as well as rich ones have not had famines. India, Botswana, and
Zimbabwe have avoided famines, even when they have suffered large crop shortfalls. In fact, the
evidence suggests that democracies can avoid famines in the face of large crop failures, whereas
nondemocracies plunge into famine after smaller shortfalls. Botswana''s food production fell by 17% and
Zimbabwe''s by 38% between 1979-81 and 1983-84, whereas Sudan and Ethiopia saw a decline in food
production of 11-12% during the same period. Sudan and Ethiopia, which were nondemocracies,
suffered major famines, whereas the democracies of Botswana and Zimbabwe did not.49 If, as I have
argued, democracies enjoy better long-run economic performance than nondemocracies, higher levels
of economic development may help democracies to avoid famines. But the absence of famines in new,
poor democracies suggests that democratic governance itself is sufficient to prevent famines.
The case of India before and after independence provides further evidence that democratic rule is a key
factor in preventing famines. Prior to independence in 1947, India suffered frequent famines. Shortly
before India became independent, the Bengal famine of 1943 killed 2-3 million people. Since India
became independent and democratic, the country has suffered severe crop failures and food shortages
in 1968, 1973, 1979, and 1987, but it has never suffered a famine.50
B. Democracy is Good for the International System
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
192
In addition to improving the lives of individual citizens in new democracies, the spread of democracy
will benefit the international system by reducing the likelihood of war. Democracies do not wage war
on other democracies. This absence-or near absence, depending on the definitions of "war" and
"democracy" used-has been called "one of the strongest nontrivial and nontautological generalizations
that can be made about international relations."51 One scholar argues that "the absence of war
between democracies comes as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international
relations."52 If the number of democracies in the international system continues to grow, the number
of potential conflicts that might escalate to war will diminish. Although wars between democracies and
nondemocracies would persist in the short run, in the long run an international system composed of
democracies would be a peaceful world. At the very least, adding to the number of democracies would
gradually enlarge the democratic "zone of peace."
1. The Evidence for the Democratic Peace
Many studies have found that there are virtually no historical cases of democracies going to war with
one another. In an important two-part article published in 1983, Michael Doyle compares all
international wars between 1816 and 1980 and a list of liberal states.53 Doyle concludes that
"constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another."54 Subsequent
statistical studies have found that this absence of war between democracies is statistically significant
and is not the result of random chance.55 Other analyses have concluded that the influence of other
variables, including geographical proximity and wealth, do not detract from the significance of the
finding that democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with one another.56
Most studies of the democratic-peace proposition have argued that democracies only enjoy a state of
peace with other democracies; they are just as likely as other states to go to war with
nondemocracies.57 There are, however, several scholars who argue that democracies are inherently
less likely to go to war than other types of states.58 The evidence for this claim remains in dispute,
however, so it would be premature to claim that spreading democracy will do more than to enlarge the
democratic zone of peace.
2. Why there is a Democratic Peace: The Causal Logic
Two types of explanations have been offered for the absence of wars between democracies. The first
argues that shared norms prevent democracies from fighting one another. The second claims that
institutional (or structural) constraints make it difficult or impossible for a democracy to wage war on
another democracy.
a. Normative Explanations
The normative explanation of the democratic peace argues that norms that democracies share preclude
wars between democracies. One version of this argument contends that liberal states do not fight other
liberal states because to do so would be to violate the principles of liberalism. Liberal states only wage
war when it advances the liberal ends of increased individual freedom. A liberal state cannot advance
liberal ends by fighting another liberal state, because that state already upholds the principles of
liberalism. In other words, democracies do not fight because liberal ideology provides no justification for
wars between liberal democracies.59 A second version of the normative explanation claims that
democracies share a norm of peaceful conflict resolution. This norm applies between and within
democratic states. Democracies resolve their domestic conflicts without violence, and they expect that
other democracies will resolve inter-democratic international disputes peacefully.60
b. Institutional/Structural Explanations
Institutional/structural explanations for the democratic peace contend that democratic decision-making
procedures and institutional constraints prevent democracies from waging war on one another. At the
most general level, democratic leaders are constrained by the public, which is sometimes pacific and
generally slow to mobilize for war. In most democracies, the legislative and executive branches check
the war-making power of each other. These constraints may prevent democracies from launching
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
193
wars. When two democracies confront one another internationally, they are not likely to rush into
war. Their leaders will have more time to resolve disputes peacefully.61 A different sort of institutional
argument suggests that democratic processes and freedom of speech make democracies better at
avoiding myths and misperceptions that cause wars.62
c. Combining Normative and Structural Explanations
Some studies have attempted to test the relative power of the normative and institutional/structural
explanations of the democratic peace.63 It might make more sense, however, to specify how the two
work in combination or separately under different conditions. For example, in liberal democracies liberal
norms and democratic processes probably work in tandem to synergistically produce the democratic
peace.64 Liberal states are unlikely to even contemplate war with one another. They thus will have few
crises and wars. In illiberal or semiliberal democracies, norms play a lesser role and crises are more
likely, but democratic institutions and processes may still make wars between illiberal democracies rare.
Finally, state-level factors like norms and domestic structures may interact with international-systemic
factors to prevent wars between democracies. If democracies are better at information-processing, they
may be better than nondemocracies at recognizing international situations where war would be foolish.
Thus the logic of the democratic peace may explain why democracies sometimes behave according to
realist (systemic) predictions.
C. The Spread of Democracy is Good for the United States
The United States will have an interest in promoting democracy because further democratization
enhances the lives of citizens of other countries and contributes to a more peaceful international
system. To the extent that Americans care about citizens of other countries and international peace,
they will see benefits from the continued spread of democracy. Spreading democracy also will directly
advance the national interests of the United States, because democracies will not launch wars or
terrorist attacks against the United States, will not produce refugees seeking asylum in the United
States, and will tend to ally with the United States.
1. Democracies Will Not Go to War with the United States
First, democracies will not go to war against the United States, provided, of course, that the United
States remains a democracy. The logic of the democratic peace suggests that the United States will have
fewer enemies in a world of more democracies. If democracies virtually never go to war with one
another, no democracy will wage war against the United States. Democracies are unlikely to get into
crises or militarized disputes with the United States. Promoting democracy may usher in a more
peaceful world; it also will enhance the national security of the United States by eliminating potential
military threats. The United States would be more secure if Russia, China, and at least some countries in
the Arab and Islamic worlds became stable democracies.
2. Democracies Don''t Support Terrorism Against the United States
Second, spreading democracy is likely to enhance U.S. national security because democracies will not
support terrorist acts against the United States. The world''s principal sponsors of international
terrorism are harsh, authoritarian regimes, including Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and Sudan.65
Some skeptics of the democratic-peace proposition point out that democracies sometimes have
sponsored covert action or "state terrorism" against other democracies. Examples include U.S. actions in
Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, and Chile in 1973.66 This argument does not undermine the claim that
democracies will not sponsor terrorism against the United States. In each case, the target state had
dubious democratic credentials. U.S. actions amounted to interference in internal affairs, but not
terrorism as it is commonly understood. And the perpetrator of the alleged "state terrorist" acts in each
case was the United States itself, which suggests that the United States has little to fear from other
democracies.
3. Democracies Produce Fewer Refugees
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
194
Third, the spread of democracy will serve American interests by reducing the number of refugees who
flee to the United States. The countries that generate the most refugees are usually the least
democratic. The absence of democracy tends to lead to internal conflicts, ethnic strife, political
oppression, and rapid population growth-all of which encourage the flight of refugees.67 The spread of
democracy can reduce refugee flows to the United States by removing the political sources of decisions
to flee.
The results of the 1994 U.S. intervention in Haiti demonstrate how U.S. efforts to promote
democratization can reduce refugee flows. The number of refugees attempting to flee Haiti for the
United States dropped dramatically after U.S. forces deposed the junta led by General Raoul Cedras and
restored the democratically elected government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, even though Haiti''s
economic fortunes did not immediately improve.68
In addition to reducing the number of countries that generate refugees, the spread of democracy is
likely to increase the number of countries that accept refugees, thereby reducing the number of
refugees who will attempt to enter the United States.69
4. Democracies will Ally with the United States
Fourth, the global spread of democracy will advance American interests by creating more potential
allies for the United States. Historically, most of America''s allies have been democracies. In general,
democracies are much more likely to ally with one another than with nondemocracies.70 Even scholars
who doubt the statistical evidence for the democratic-peace proposition, agree that "the nature of
regimes ... is an important variable in the understanding the composition of alliances ... democracies
have allied with one another."71 Thus spreading democracy will produce more and better alliance
partners for the United States.
5. American Ideals Flourish When Others Adopt Them
Fifth, the spread of democracy internationally is likely to increase Americans'' psychological sense of
well-being about their own democratic institutions. Part of the impetus behind American attempts to
spread democracy has always come from the belief that American democracy will be healthier when
other countries adopt similar political systems. To some extent, this belief reflects the conviction that
democracies will be friendly toward the United States. But it also reflects the fact that democratic
principles are an integral part of America''s national identity. The United States thus has a special
interest in seeing its ideals spread.72
6. Democracies Make Better Economic Partners
Finally, the United States will benefit from the spread of democracy because democracies will make
better economic partners. Democracies are more likely to adopt market economies, so democracies
will tend to have more prosperous and open economies. The United States generally will be able to
establish mutually beneficial trading relationships with democracies. And democracies provide better
climates for American overseas investment, by virtue of their political stability and market economies.
195
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Ext – Kills Democracy
The embargo has failed, and is an excuse for the regime.
Bangdow, former assistant to President Reagan, 2012
[Doug, 12-11-2012, The CATO Institute, “Time to End the Cuba Embargo,”
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo EJH]
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.”
The embargo strengthens the regime – opening embargo stimulates agriculture and
hastens fall of communism – empirics
Griswold , Director of the CATO Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, 09
(Daniel, 8/15/09, guardian.co.uk, “The US embargo of Cuba is a failure,”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/15/cuba-us-trade-embargo-obama
6/23/13, RJ)
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. As a tool of US foreign
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
policy,
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
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
196
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 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.
The embargo has failed – removal of the embargo would undermine the regime
Griswold, director of CATO Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, 05
(Daniel, 8/12/05, CATO Institute, “Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo Against Cuba,”
http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba, 6/23/13.
RJ)
The real dividing line in U.S. policy toward Cuba is how best to undermine the Castro regime and hasten the island’s day
of liberation. For almost half a century, the U.S. government has tried to isolate Cuba economically in an effort to
undermine the regime and deprive it of resources. Since 1960, Americans have been barred from trading with, investing in, or
traveling to Cuba. The embargo had a national security rationale before 1991, when Castro served as the Soviet Union’s
proxy in the Western Hemisphere. But all that changed with the fall of Soviet communism. Today, more than a decade after
losing billions in annual economic aid from its former sponsor, Cuba is only a poor and dysfunctional nation of 11 million
that poses no threat to American or regional security.¶ A 1998 report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency concluded
that, “Cuba does not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region.” The report declared Cuba’s military forces
“residual” and “defensive.” Some officials in the Bush administration have charged that Castro’s government may be supporting terrorists
abroad, but the evidence is pretty shaky. And even if true, maintaining a comprehensive trade embargo
would be a blunt and
ineffective lever for change.¶ As a foreign policy tool, the embargo actually enhances Castro”s standing by
giving him a handy excuse for the failures of his homegrown Caribbean socialism. He can rail for hours about the
suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by his domestic policies is far worse. If
the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people would be a bit less deprived and Castro would have no one
else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that will persist without real market reforms.¶ If the goal of U.S. policy
toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has completely failed. Its
economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the
United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and
fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by extracting any meager surplus
produced by their captive subjects.
197
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Ext – Plan Solves
Solves democracy- direct linkages and NGOs.
[Delia, Summer 2011, Politics Daily, “Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba
Embargo,”http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cubaembargo/ EJH]
It's good politics. Supporters of the trade embargo -- like Cuban-American Sen. Robert Menendez (DN.J.) -- have long argued that easing the restrictions would only reward Castro for the regime's ongoing
repression of political dissidents. We need to keep up the economic pressure on Cuba, so this logic goes,
in order to keep pressure on the regime to do something about human rights. But there's a longstanding empirical relationship between trade and democracy. The usual logic put forth to explain this
relationship is that trade creates an economically independent and politically aware middle class,
which, in turn, presses for political reform. It's not clear that this argument actually holds up when
subjected to close causal scrutiny (although the reverse does seem to be true -- i.e., democratic reform
creates pressure for trade liberalization). Still, it's difficult to disagree with the proposition that by
enabling visiting scholars and religious groups to stay in Cuba for up to two years (as the presidential
order would allow) rather than a matter of weeks (as is currently the case) we'd be helping, not
hurting, democracy in Cuba. First, easing the current travel restrictions would allow for far deeper
linkages between non-governmental organizations from both countries, which some see as a powerful
mechanism for democratic reform. Second, because American visitors would be staying on the island
longer, scholars and activists alike would gain much better insight into where the pressure points for
democracy actually exist.
Plan key to democracy – the embargo trades off with security spending
Dodd, Former Democratic Senator of Connecticut, 05 (Christopher J., New York Times Upfront, “Should
the U.S. end its Cuba embargo?,” ELibrary, Accessed 6/24/13, RJ)
The United States is the only nation that still has a trade embargo against Cuba. After four decades, it's clear that our
policy has failed
to achieve its goals: the end of Fidel Castro's regime and a peaceful transition to democracy. Today, Cuba remains under totalitarian
rule, with Castro still firmly in power.¶ The real victims of our policies are the 11 million innocent Cuban men,
women, and children. Our embargo has exacerbated already-miserable living conditions for Cuban citizens. Cuba's economy has
suffered because it is prohibited from exporting goods to the U.S. In addition, most Cubans have very limited access to American products.
Moreover, our
policies restrict Americans' right to travel freely to Cuba, making exchange between our two cultures
are many other countries whose governments arc not freely elected. Yet none
of our policies toward these nations resemble our treatment of Cuba. With the Cold War over and Cuba posing no
threat to the U.S., there is no justification for our outdated approach to Cuba. To make matters worse, we are
spending extraordinary resources to enforce the embargo-resources that could be used to secure our
nation against terrorism.¶ It's time for a fundamental change in our Cuba policy. We can start by ending the trade embargo and by
lifting the ban on travel to Cuba by American citizens. Only by engaging the Cuban people, and by building bridges
between our citizens and theirs, will we succeed in bringing freedom and democracy to our neighbor.
essentially impossible.¶ There
198
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Engagement Key
Engagement guides Cuba to Democracy.
Amash, writer for international of international affairs at UCSD, 2012
[Brandon, 7-23-12, Prospect, EVALUATING THE CUBAN EMBARGO, http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/, 629-13, GZ]
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 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.
199
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Oil Spills**
200
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Module – Oil Spills
The Embargo prevents cooperation on oil spills – Cuba needs US equipment. Removing
the embargo is key.
Stephens, executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas focused on
U.S.-Cuba relations, 11
(Sarah, 3/14/11, Los Angeles Times, “Like Oil and Water in the Gulf,”
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/14/opinion/la-oe-stephens-cuba-oil-20110314,
6/26/13, ND)
Thanks to the U.S. embargo against Cuba — a remnant of the Cold War — the risks to the United States begin the
moment the first drill bit pierces the seabed. And we are utterly unprepared.¶ Not only does the embargo
prohibit U.S. firms from joining Cuba in any efforts to extract its offshore resources, thus giving the
competitive advantage to foreign firms, but it also denies Cuba access to U.S. equipment for drilling and
environmental protection — an especially troubling policy considering the potential for a spill. The
embargo also compels Cuba's foreign partners to go through contortions, such as ordering a drilling rig built in China and shipping it nearly
10,000 miles to Cuban waters, to avoid violating U.S. law.¶ Most important, the
failed policy of isolating Cuba has the U.S.
us from engaging Cuba in meaningful environmental cooperation and prevents us from
addressing in advance the threat of potential spills caused by hurricanes or technological failures, which could put our
waters, fisheries and beaches at peril.¶ As Cuba gets ready to drill, the Obama administration has limited options. It could do
paralyzed: It stops
nothing. It could try to stop Cuba from developing its oil and natural gas, an alternative most likely to fail in an energy-hungry world. Or it could
use its executive authority to cooperate with Cuba, despite the embargo, to ensure that drilling in the gulf protects our mutual interests.¶ Since
the 1990s, Cuba
has showed a serious commitment to the environment, building an array of environmental policies,
many based on U.S. and Spanish law. But it has no experience responding to major spills. And, like the U.S., Cuba has to
balance its economic and environmental interests, and the environmental side will not always prevail.¶ Against this backdrop, cooperation
and engagement is the right approach, and there is already precedent for it.¶ During the BP spill, Cuba permitted a vessel
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to look for damage in Cuban waters. The Obama administration declared
its willingness to provide limited licenses for U.S. firms to respond to the BP spill, and to others in the future that threaten
Cuba. It also provided visas for Cuban scientists to attend an important environmental conference in Florida. But these modest
measures are not sufficient.¶ Members of Congress from Florida have introduced bills to impose sanctions on foreign oil companies
and U.S. firms that help Cuba drill for oil, and to punish those foreign firms by denying them the right to drill in U.S. waters. These proposals will
not stop Cuba from drilling; if enacted, Cuba's partners will disregard them, and they will make cooperation to protect our mutual coastal
environment even more difficult.¶ Energy
policy and environmental protection are classic examples of how the
embargo is an abiding threat to U.S. interests. It should no longer be acceptable to base U.S. foreign
policy on the illusion that sanctions will cause Cuba's government to collapse — or stop Cuba from developing
its oil resources. Nor should this policy or the political dynamic that sustains it prevent the U.S. from addressing both the
challenges and benefits of Cuba finding meaningful amounts of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.¶
Increased ties are key to biodiversity – the embargo limits interaction and destroys
the environment
Boom 12 (Brian M. Boom, Director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, September 2012,
“Biodiversity without Borders: Advancing U.S.-Cuba Cooperation through ¶ Environmental Research,”
Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 3 (September 2012*). ¶
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders. Accessed June 24, 2013,
RJ)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
201
THE ever-increasing challenges to the biodiversity shared by Cuba and the ¶ United States provide the
opportunity and the need for the two nations to take ¶ an enhanced collaborative, bilateral approach
to addressing shared issues. Cuba ¶ lies a mere ninety miles south of the U.S. state of Florida, and the
two countries’ ¶ territorial waters meet in the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. Cuba and ¶ the
United States thus share much biodiversity—ranging from varied populations ¶ of organisms to diverse
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Native species migrate, ¶ exotic species invade, disease-causing
species disperse, and rare species go extinct ¶ in the face of growing habitat modification. The living
components of this shared ¶ environment are dynamically impacted, sometimes unpredictably so, by
natural or ¶ man-made environmental disasters. Nature does not respect political boundaries ¶ nor do
such potential disasters as oil spills, toxic releases, hurricanes, and tropical ¶ storms. Such events
provide the sine qua non for greater bilateral cooperation. ¶ Governments around the world routinely
collaborate on shared environmental ¶ concerns bilaterally or multilaterally, depending on the situation
being addressed. ¶ Environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from local to international ¶
levels often work in partnership with governments to solve environmental problems ¶ that extend
beyond national boundaries. Such public/private arrangements work well in most circumstances, and
there are many effective mechanisms in place to ¶ deal with challenges ranging from endangered
species and ecosystems to oil and ¶ toxic waste spills.¶ However, a lack of formal diplomatic relations
can limit desirable cooperation ¶ on shared environmental issues. The U.S. embargo on trade with
Cuba —¶ which was instituted in 1961 by the Kennedy administration in response to ¶ Cuba’s
nationalization of U.S. businesses’ properties in Cuba during the Cuban ¶ Revolution—and subsequent
regulations have thwarted the efforts of Cuban and ¶ U.S. scientists to collaborate on environmental
or other professional and academic ¶ matters.1¶ There is essentially no intergovernmental
environmental interaction ¶ between the United States and Cuba . The shared biodiversity of these
countries, ¶ and in some cases that of other nations in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico ¶ regions,
suffers as a result . ¶ Fortunately, some NGOs in the United States have had success over the years in ¶
working collaboratively with their Cuban counterparts on shared environmental ¶ issues. The
experiences of such NGOs can inform a way forward in structuring ¶ an enhanced mechanism for
bilateral cooperation. Also fortunately, on January 14, ¶ 2011, the Obama administration announced
new rules that ease some restrictions ¶ on U.S. citizens’ travel and remittances to Cuba, which will
collaterally encourage ¶ more bilateral environmental collaboration as well. While these steps have
created ¶ some space, given the political realities, a targeted environmental agreement is ¶ required
to facilitate further mutually beneficial study, monitoring, and protection ¶ of shared biodiversity.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
202
Ext – Oil Rigs Expanding
Oil rig count is increasing in the status quo
OGJ, The Oil & Gas Journal is a leading petroleum industry weekly publication with a
worldwide coverage, 5/31
(Oil and Gas Journal, 5/31/13, “US drilling rig count climbs 9 units to 1,771,”
http://www.ogj.com/articles/2013/05/us-drilling-rig-count-climbs-9-units-to-1771.html, 6/26/13, ND)
The US drilling rig count was up 9 units during the week ended May 31, reaching a total of 1,771 rotary
rigs working, Baker Hughes Inc. reported.¶ Land-based drilling increased by 6 units from a week ago to
1,691 rigs working. The offshore count gained 4 units to 55, while inland water drilling dropped to 25,
down 1 unit. Of the rigs drilling offshore, 52 were in the Gulf of Mexico, up 4 units from a week ago.¶
Rigs drilling for oil climbed by 8 units to 1,410, while those targeting gas were unchanged this week at
354 rigs working. Seven rigs were considered unclassified, an increase of 1 unit from a week ago.¶
Oil rig count increasing in status quo – multiple warrants
Beaubouef, managing editor for “Offshore” magazine, 6/1
(Bruce, Offshore Magazine, 6/1/13, “Gulf Drilling Rebounds to pre-Macondo levels,”
http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-73/issue-6/gulf-of-mexico/gulfdrilling-rebounds-to-pre-macondo-levels.html, 6/26/13, ND)
Drilling activity in the Gulf of Mexico is rebounding slowly but surely from the events of 2010, and is part of a general
recovery in E&P activity taking place in the Gulf in the wake of Macondo.¶ The increase in drilling is driven by sustained high
oil prices, new lease sales, the promulgation of a new safety regime, fiscal stability, and the fact that
the pace of permitting has finally returned to pre-spill levels. Since October 2012, 55 wells have been
cleared for drilling.¶ In the first half of this year, the Gulf of Mexico is expected to have 46 competitive
deepwater rigs, and this number is projected to increase by mid-2014 to just over 50 competitive deepwater
units, according to Rigzone's RigLogix Database.¶ Last year, eight newbuild floaters entered the Gulf of Mexico with another eight expected to
enter in 2013. Thus far, five newbuild floaters are forecasted to enter the 2014 GoM market with only one new unit projected for 2015.¶ The
deepwater rig count for 2013 is forecasted to be the highest it has been in five years. The overall floater fleet is set to expand by 31% with the
newbuild plans, while the jackup fleet will expand by 18%, according to an analysis conducted by Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.¶ Looking at
announced contracts in 2013 and 2014, analysts believe that there will be 45 to 50 rigs in the deepwater GoM through 2014, with the
possibility of more. Additionally, development drilling activity is expected to reach a new peak in 2013, which will then likely be superseded in
the following two years, according to a Wood Mackenzie report.¶ Some
analysts describe the Gulf as the fastest growing
deepwater market in the world today, one that will continue to grow into 2014. Optimistic projections hold that the Gulf rig
count could double by 2017, with predictions that oil service companies alone could see revenue from the Gulf rise from $4 billion in 2011 to
$12 billion in 2015.
203
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Ext – Embargo K/
The Embargo denies Cuba access to US technologies that could greatly reduce the risk
of oil spills and decrease effectiveness of spill cleanup
CDA, conducts research on the effects of the US embargo, 11
(2011, Center for Democracy in the Americas, “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of
Mexico, US policy poses needless risks to our national interest,”
http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf, pg. 1,
6/26/13, ND)
The U.S. embargo against Cuba, a remnant of the Cold War, is an obstacle¶ to realizing and protecting our interests
in the region. Not only does it prohibit¶ U.S. firms from joining Cuba in efforts to extract its offshore
resources, thus¶ giving the competitive advantage to other foreign firms, but it also denies¶ Cuba access to U.S.
equipment for drilling and environmental protection—an¶ especially troubling outcome in the wake of
the disastrous BP spill, the embargo compels Cuba's foreign partners to go through contortions—such¶ as ordering a state of the art
drilling rig built in China and sailing it roughly¶ 10,000 miles to Cuban waters—to avoid violating the content limitations¶ imposed by U.S. law.¶
Most important, due
to the failed policy of isolating Cuba, the United¶ States cannot engage in meaningful
environmental cooperation with Cuba¶ while it develops its own energy resources. Our government
cannot even¶ address the threat of potential spills in advance from the frequent hurricane¶ activity in
the Gulf or from technological failures, either of which could put¶ precious and environmentally
sensitive U.S. coastal assets—our waters, our¶ fisheries, our beaches—at great peril.
Embargo threatens oil drilling safety
Bolstad, environmental correspondent at McClatchy, 2012
[Erika, 5-10-12, McClatchy, Cuba embargo could threaten oil-drilling safety, expert says,
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/10/148433/cuba-embargo-could-threaten-oil.html#.UdDq7T773iQ, 6-30-13, GZ]
The 50-year-old U.S. embargo of Cuba is getting in the way of safety when it comes to deepwater
drilling in Cuban waters, an expert on the communist country’s offshore drilling activity said Thursday.¶ Lee Hunt, the former
president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, warned that Cold War-era economic sanctions threaten not
only Florida’s economy and environment but that of Cuba, too, in the event of a major disaster on the scale of
2010’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The worst-case scenario is "state-sponsored chaos at a disaster
site," Hunt said during an event sponsored by the Center for International Policy, a Washington think tank that advocates for a foreign policy
based on human rights.¶ The U.S. Coast Guard has extensive response plans, as does the state of Florida. But Hunt said he would give
prevention efforts an "F" grade. He likened the work to stocking body bags for a plane crash – but not training pilots to fly safely or
to maintain aircraft properly.¶ "We’re getting ready for what will inevitably happen if we don’t take the right proactive steps," Hunt said.¶ His
warning and that of other experts came as the Spanish
oil company Repsol is about to tap an offshore reservoir
beneath 5,600 feet of seawater and about 14,000 feet of rock. The company, the first of many set to drill for oil
off Cuba’s coast, is working just 77 nautical miles from Key West.¶ Workers are about a week from completing their drilling and
are beginning the technically demanding phase of capping the well and preparing it for possible production, the panelists at the event said.¶
Former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief William Reilly, who along with former Florida Sen. Bob Graham co-chaired the presidential
commission that examined BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill, said that in his most recent visit to Cuba he was reassured that Repsol was moving
slowly in Cuban waters to avoid any surprises. Dan Whittle of the Environmental Defense Fund said that in his visits to Cuba, well-thumbed
copies of the commission’s report looked as though they were "read even more in Havana than here."¶ Reilly also noted that Cuban officials are
regular readers of daily bulletins from U.S. agencies on U.S. oil drilling regulations. He said he urged them to follow Mexican offshore guidelines
– which he said are based on U.S. rules.¶ "Nobody is predicting a catastrophe in association with anything that the Cubans are overseeing,"
Reilly said. "In every way, the Cuban approach to this is responsible, careful and attentive to the risks that they know they’re undertaking."¶
"Nevertheless, should there be a need for a response . . . the
United States government has not interpreted its
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
204
sanctions policy in a way that would clearly make available in advance the kind of technologies that
would be required," Reilly said.
Without removing the embargo, an oil spill would leave the entire Gulf of Mexico
vulnerable to detrimental oil spills
CDA, conducts research on the effects of the US embargo, 11
(2011, Center for Democracy in the Americas, “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of
Mexico, US policy poses needless risks to our national interest,”
http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf, pg. 23-24,
6/26/13, ND)
The embargo prevents Cuba from having adequate access to the range of ¶ tools needed to drill safely or
respond to emergencies should one develop. ¶ The embargo restricts Cuba’s access to knowledge and
associations that would help it plan for or react to a spill. The embargo prevents meaningful ¶
participation by U.S. private sector firms in planning for reaction, containment, or remediation efforts.
¶ While licenses allowing
otherwise prohibited U.S. participation in such ¶ activities can be granted by OFAC to address exigent circumstances
on a ¶ discretionary basis under the U.S. sanctions regulations, the
embargo has ¶ forced Cuba to seek access to ¶ drilling
equipment and support by convoluted means.49¶ U.S. policy also subjects ¶ the adjacent waters of the ¶
Gulf of Mexico and the ¶ Florida Straits to entirely ¶ different regulatory schemes, ¶ leaving Florida with
significantly less than adequate protection. Finally, the ¶ policy limits the ability of the U.S. to plan for
disasters like the BP spill or to ¶ cooperate with Cuba in anticipation of them.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
205
Ext – Cuban Oil Expanding
Cuba plans to allow 5 more oil rigs into the gulf posing a risk to Floridian tourism and
natural resources
Brett, Gulf Coast Director at Snook and Gamefish Foundation, 11
(Jon, National Wildlife Federation, 6/1/11, “Proposed Drilling Operations in Cuba
Threaten the Gulf of Mexico,” http://www.nwf.org/news-and-magazines/mediacenter/news-by-topic/wildlife/2011/05-31-11-proposed-drilling-operations-in-cubathreaten-the-gulf-of-mexico.aspx, 6/26/13, ND)
More than a year since the Gulf oil disaster, the
rush to pursue expanded deepwater drilling is picking up momentum. The
concerns regarding wildlife species
continue to arise. But another threat has also emerged. In an effort to discover new reserves of oil and gas, Cuba plans to drill
five deepwater oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico this summer.¶ Manley Fuller, president of the Florida Wildlife
Federation, believes the risk is far too great. “Florida’s coastal environment and our many natural resourcebased jobs are extremely vulnerable to oil spills. A major spill in Cuba’s northern waters would quickly appear
on Florida’s beaches and shores, wreaking havoc on fishing, tourism, and our entire coastal economy.”¶
long-term impacts of the nearly 206 million gallons of spilled oil are still unclear. New
There are a number of concerns regarding this endeavor, but the most significant are the proposed drilling depth and proximity of the sites to
Florida.¶ The wells would be in waters ranging from 400 meters to 1,500 meters (1.6 miles) deep, an additional 600 feet deeper than BP’s
Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf. According to NWF Senior Scientist Doug Inkley, “If we learned anything from the Gulf oil disaster, it is that
drilling safely a mile deep really is beyond current technological capabilities. The potential rig in Cuba and other
deepwater wells are high risk, another reason we must transition quickly to a new energy future that reduces our addiction to oil.Ӧ
The northernmost tip of Cuba is located less than 100 miles from Key West, but the rig would stand on the outer edge of Cuba’s
territorial waters, just 50 miles off Florida’s coast. In the case of a spill, conservative estimates predict it
would take just three days for oil to reach U.S. shores.¶ This proximity is of particular concern because of the
potential impacts on tourism. According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, “Outdoor recreation in Florida
including recreational fishing, hunting and wildlife-viewing alone generate an economic impact of $10.1 billion annually.” From an
economic standpoint, it is vital to protect Florida’s delicate coastal environment.¶ Sarasota Representative
Vern Buchanan (FL-13th) recognizes this threat.¶ “As we have learned from the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, an oil
spill can devastate a regional economy and impose serious long-term environmental damage to
precious natural resources. We’ve got to have clean water, clean beaches, and a pristine environment if we want to keep attracting
people,” said Buchanan.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
206
Ext – Cooperation Key
Cuba and the US must work together on oil – save the environment and Cuba’s tourism
industry
Conell, Research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 9
(Christina, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an Environmental Duo?“,
http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/, 6/25/13, AZ)
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 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.¶ \
Emba Cooperation Between the U.S. and Cuba necessary—Oil Spills Prove
Piñon and Muse, Writers for the Brookings Institute, ’10
(Jorge and Robert, 5/’10,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/5/18%20oil%20spill
%20cuba%20pinon/0518_oil_spill_cuba_pinon, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
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 sobering 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 disasters 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
207
rgo holds back the oil clean up in the Gulf
Dlouhy energy reporter for the Houston Chronicle 11
(Jennifer, “Embargo may block U.S. response to Cuban oil spill”,
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/06/06/embargo-may-block-u-s-response-to-cuban-oilspill/, 6/24/13, AZ)
With oil exploration set to begin in Cuba’s Gulf of Mexico waters, pressure is mounting on the
administration to relax a politically sensitive embargo that would prevent U.S. firms from responding
swiftly to potential oil spills roughly 50 miles from Florida beaches.¶ The U.S. trade embargo against
Cuba generally bars U.S. commerce with the nation and caps at 10 percent the portion of Americanmade components in offshore drilling equipment used in Cuba.¶ That means containment equipment
developed after last year’s oil spill would be off-limits — at least initially – if the same thing happened
in Cuba’s part of the Gulf. Oil spilled there could reach the U.S. in three days.¶ The embargo also would
forbid use of chemical dispersants to break up oil, boom capable of corralling it and other spill
response equipment manufactured in the United States. Nearby drilling rigs in the Gulf also would be
barred from working on relief wells in Cuban waters.¶ But with companies planning to begin
exploratory drilling off Cuba as early as September, industry and environmental interests alike are
pressing the Obama administration to modify the embargo’s restrictions for firms that could respond to
a disaster.¶ “Embargo or not, we cannot ignore Cuba drilling in the Florida Straits,” said Lee Hunt, the
head of the Houston-based International Association of Drilling Contractors. Hunt said he is trying to
persuade political leaders to prepare now by coordinating with companies that could help in an
emergency.¶ Help a long way off¶ If there were an accident under the current system, Cuban officials
and the oil companies “simply won’t be able to pick up the phone and call the nearest responders in
the U.S.,” said Dan Whittle, a senior attorney and director of the Cuba program for the Environmental
Defense Fund.¶ Instead of flying technicians and parts from New Orleans and Houston, oil companies
drilling in Cuban waters would have to seek resources from North Sea or South American operations,
said Jorge Piñon, an expert on Cuba’s energy sector who spent three decades working for Shell, Amoco
and BP.¶ Repsol, a publicly traded oil company based in Spain, is preparing to drill an exploratory well
near the Florida Straits this fall, after Saipem’s Scarabeo 9 rig arrives there. Partners on the project
include Norway’s Statoil and India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corp.¶ Other firms – all foreign-owned national
oil companies – are lined up to use the Scarabeo 9 to explore their offshore Cuba leases afterward, with
drilling on as many as seven wells reportedly planned during the next four years.¶ Political challenge¶
Under the embargo – imposed administratively since the early 1960s and by law since 1992 – companies
can ask the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control for licenses to travel to or do
business with Cuba. At least two U.S. companies specializing in spill response already hold such permits.¶
Advocates of a looser policy want the administration to issue a general license for a broad class of oil
service companies to share safety information now and do business with Cuba in case of an
emergency.¶ Another option is a presidential executive order issued after a disaster, though that would
not remove barriers on sharing information in advance.¶ Piñon notes that company-specific licenses
have a political virtue: They can be issued quietly. By contrast, a general license for all oil response and
service firms – even limited to emergencies – would be seen by some hard-line embargo supporters as
“the first crack in the embargo wall,” Piñon said.¶ That presents a political challenge for the
administration and for lawmakers on Capitol Hill, where the conventional wisdom is that any move to
relax the trade policy could alienate a powerful voting bloc of pro-embargo Cuban-Americans in South
Florida.¶ Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., who represents many such embargo supporters in Miami’s
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
208
Little Havana and the Florida Keys, wants the U.S. to do more to thwart Cuban offshore drilling.¶ “The
Cuban tyranny will say and do anything to persuade others to invest in its oil sector in order to stay
afloat,” she said. “It is in our national security interests to deter others from participating in these
reckless schemes. We cannot allow the Castro regime to become the oil tycoons of the Caribbean.Ӧ
Cuban promises¶ Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has said his agency and the State Department are
working to ensure that Cuban drilling is as safe as possible.¶ The Interior Department, which oversees
drilling in U.S. waters, has been working with Mexico to develop what Salazar calls a single “gold
standard” governing oil and gas exploration in the Gulf.¶ Department officials have drawn leverage from
Repsol’s leases in U.S. Gulf waters and pushed the Spanish company to follow American standards when
drilling in Cuba. Salazar pressed the issue with Spanish authorities and Repsol representatives during a
trip to Spain last week.¶ In a conference call Friday from Oviedo, Spain, Salazar said Repsol has
volunteered to comply with U.S. environmental regulations for any of its Gulf drilling – even near Cuba.¶
During an International Association of Drilling Contractors conference last month in Trinidad, six Cuban
officials said their country is following IADC, American Petroleum Institute and United Kingdom models
for managing the risks of drilling operations.¶ Information sharing¶ IADC’s Hunt said Cuba is requiring
Repsol and other operators “to demonstrate the extent of their compliance with U.S. regulations.”¶ He
said Cuban officials also have studied the report by the U.S. presidential commission that investigated
last year’s oil spill, and have expressed interest in talking with the U.S. government about oil spill
preparation and coordination.¶ The Environmental Defense Fund’s Whittle argues that by working
together now – before drilling begins – Cuba and the U.S. could share information on standards and
science.¶ “The Cubans would have a lot to learn on how to build out an infrastructure to accommodate
oil and gas,” Whittle said. “From an environmental perspective, I wish this issue would transcend politics
and the relative government agencies could work together.Ӧ The United States already has plans with
Mexico and Canada for handling oil spills in shared waters.¶ The U.S. needs a similar accord with
Cuba, said Thad Allen, the former Coast Guard admiral who headed the Deepwater Horizon response.¶
“We need to figure out what are the barriers that might prohibit us from being more effective in a
response with Cuba and start attacking those now from a legislative and statutory standpoint,” Allen
said in an interview. “Right now we’re pretty much prohibited from doing anything.”
US and Cuba can cooperate on oil drilling
Whittle Cuba Program Director for the Environmental Defense Fund 12
(Daniel, “Not Like Oil and Water – Cuba and the US Can Cooperate on Drilling”,
http://cubacentral.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/not-like-oil-and-water-cuba-and-theus-can-cooperate-on-drilling/, 6/25/13, AZ)
The Environmental Defense Fund recently released a report called Bridging the Gulf in which we
concluded that “current U.S. foreign policy on Cuba creates a conspicuous blind spot” that is
detrimental to the interests of both countries. A failure to cooperate on oil spill planning, prevention,
and response in the Gulf of Mexico could result in devastating environmental and economic impacts
on a scale greater than the 2010 BP oil disaster.¶ Recently, I witnessed a potential bright spot in USCuba relations that could lead to real and meaningful cooperation in protecting Cuban and American
shores from future oil spills.¶ As the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA was preparing to drill off of
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
209
Cuba’s northwest coast in August, U.S. and Cuban negotiators met in Mexico City to discuss how to work
together to prevent and respond to future oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. The
meeting was the fourth in a series of landmark talks hosted by the International Maritime Organization
(IMO), and included officials from Mexico, Jamaica, Bahamas, and other countries in the region. I was
among the handful of industry and environmental representatives invited to attend.¶ I was struck by the
candid back-and-forth discussions on the risks involved in deep water oil drilling and by the
constructive exchanges between delegates from Cuba and the United States. I came away convinced
that negotiators from both countries are operating in good faith and are committed to making
progress on this issue.¶ That being said, more needs to be done.¶ Attendees agreed that the BP oil
disaster was a wake-up call and that failure to heed the lessons learned from it would be an inexcusable
and costly mistake. Chief among those lessons is that oil spills do not observe political boundaries and,
as such, joint planning among all countries in the region is critical. The event also taught us that
sufficient public and private resources must be available to contain and clean-up oil pollution as soon as
possible. In fact, the scale of response needed for the BP spill was unprecedented—6,500 vessels, 125
planes, 48,000 responders, and equipment resourced globally.¶ Several presenters in Mexico City
emphasized that full and timely access to private sector equipment and response personnel, wherever
they are located, is fundamental to responding effectively to future oil spills.¶ This lesson is particularly
relevant to the current U.S.-Cuba talks.¶ If a major oil spill were to occur in Cuban waters anytime soon,
the U.S. Coast Guard—as incident commander—would be able to marshal the resources needed to
address oil pollution after it enters our waters. The agency has neither the authority nor the mandate,
however, to support response and clean-up activities in Cuban waters. Furthermore, the Cuban
government would be hamstrung in its ability to solicit direct help from private sector oil spill response
companies in the United States. Currently, only a few American companies are licensed by the U.S.
government to work in Cuba (actual names and numbers of license holders are not a matter of public
record.).¶ The Obama Administration could solve this problem by directing the Treasury Department to
adopt a new category of general licenses to allow U.S. individuals from qualified oil services and
equipment companies to travel to Cuba and provide technical expertise in the event of an oil disaster.
The Administration should also direct the Commerce Department to pre-approve licenses for the
temporary export of U.S. equipment, vessels, and technology to Cuba for use during a significant oil
spill.¶ The U.S. and Cuba have laid an unprecedented foundation for cooperation on offshore oil
safety and environmental protection. They should continue their talks in earnest and produce a
written agreement on joint planning, preparedness and response as soon as possible.
The US and Cuba are not cooperating now
Conell, Research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 9
(Christina, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an Environmental Duo?“,
http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/, 6/25/13, AZ)
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 moving 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
210
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.¶
Cuba is incredibly biologically diverse – critical to the health of North America’s
Atlantic coastal communities
Conell, Research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 9
(Christina, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an Environmental Duo?“,
http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/, 6/25/13, AZ)
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.¶
Increased ties are key to biodiversity – the embargo limits interaction and destroys
the environment
Boom, Director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, 12
(Brian M. Boom, September 2012, “Biodiversity without Borders: Advancing U.S.-Cuba Cooperation
through ¶ Environmental Research,” Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 3 (September 2012*). ¶
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders. Accessed June 24, 2013,
RJ)
THE ever-increasing challenges to the biodiversity shared by Cuba and the ¶ United States provide the
opportunity and the need for the two nations to take ¶ an enhanced collaborative, bilateral approach
to addressing shared issues. Cuba ¶ lies a mere ninety miles south of the U.S. state of Florida, and the
two countries’ ¶ territorial waters meet in the Gulf of Mexico and the Straits of Florida. Cuba and ¶ the
United States thus share much biodiversity—ranging from varied populations ¶ of organisms to diverse
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Native species migrate, ¶ exotic species invade, disease-causing
species disperse, and rare species go extinct ¶ in the face of growing habitat modification. The living
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
211
components of this shared ¶ environment are dynamically impacted, sometimes unpredictably so, by
natural or ¶ man-made environmental disasters. Nature does not respect political boundaries ¶ nor do
such potential disasters as oil spills, toxic releases, hurricanes, and tropical ¶ storms. Such events
provide the sine qua non for greater bilateral cooperation. ¶ Governments around the world routinely
collaborate on shared environmental ¶ concerns bilaterally or multilaterally, depending on the situation
being addressed. ¶ Environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from local to international ¶
levels often work in partnership with governments to solve environmental problems ¶ that extend
beyond national boundaries. Such public/private arrangements work well in most circumstances, and
there are many effective mechanisms in place to ¶ deal with challenges ranging from endangered
species and ecosystems to oil and ¶ toxic waste spills.¶ However, a lack of formal diplomatic relations
can limit desirable cooperation ¶ on shared environmental issues. The U.S. embargo on trade with
Cuba —¶ which was instituted in 1961 by the Kennedy administration in response to ¶ Cuba’s
nationalization of U.S. businesses’ properties in Cuba during the Cuban ¶ Revolution—and subsequent
regulations have thwarted the efforts of Cuban and ¶ U.S. scientists to collaborate on environmental
or other professional and academic ¶ matters.1¶ There is essentially no intergovernmental
environmental interaction ¶ between the United States and Cuba . The shared biodiversity of these
countries, ¶ and in some cases that of other nations in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico ¶ regions,
suffers as a result . ¶ Fortunately, some NGOs in the United States have had success over the years in ¶
working collaboratively with their Cuban counterparts on shared environmental ¶ issues. The
experiences of such NGOs can inform a way forward in structuring ¶ an enhanced mechanism for
bilateral cooperation. Also fortunately, on January 14, ¶ 2011, the Obama administration announced
new rules that ease some restrictions ¶ on U.S. citizens’ travel and remittances to Cuba, which will
collaterally encourage ¶ more bilateral environmental collaboration as well. While these steps have
created ¶ some space, given the political realities, a targeted environmental agreement is ¶ required
to facilitate further mutually beneficial study, monitoring, and protection ¶ of shared biodiversity.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
212
I/L – Environmental Credibility
Environmental cooperation between US and Cuba sets exemplary worldwide models
Conell, Research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 9
(Christina, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an Environmental Duo?“,
http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/, 6/25/13, AZ)
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.¶
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
213
Impact – Coastal Environment
Oil spills threaten Florida’s coast which is home to sensitive resources. Removing the
embargo prevents those spills
Stephens and Colvin 11
(Sarah, executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, and Jake, Vice
President for Global Trade Issues at the National Foreign Trade Council, 9/29/11,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/184661-us-cuba-policy-andthe-race-for-oil-drilling, 6/26/13, ND)
In virtually every other country in the world, developments like these would prompt high-level discussions about how to exploit these resources
safely or to anticipate a crisis were a disaster to strike. Experts who have studied the currents say
a spill in Cuban waters would
send 90 percent of the oil into the Keys and up the East Coast of Florida. But the embargo leaves
Florida’s sensitive coastal resources defenseless. ¶ ¶ Due to the fact that the drilling involves Cuba,
American companies and workers cannot lend their expertise to what could be a risky operation. U.S.
economic sanctions prevent our private sector from helping Cuba drill safely and paralyze the U.S. government,
which ought to be convening bilateral discussions on best practices and coordinating disaster
response. In fact, the U.S. has no emergency response agreement with Cuba for oil spills. While some specific
licenses have been granted to permit U.S. firms to conduct limited transactions with Cuba, current sanctions bar the United
States from deploying the kind of clean-up equipment, engineers, spare parts for blow-out prevention, chemical
dispersants, and rigs to drill relief wells that would be needed to address an oil crisis involving Cuba. ¶
Wetlands solve extinction
MWP, one of South Africa's oldest and largest non-government environmental
organizations, 4
(Mondi Wetlands Project, 2004, “Going to War Over Water,”
http://www.wetland.org.za/news.htm=&NodeId=912&Id=24, 6-30-13)
In a recent issue, Time Magazine devoted the entire magazine to the "rogue weather" lashing our
planet. But the weather hasn’t changed. What has changed, is the ability of our natural resources to
protect us from the vagaries of extreme weather. This is due to the fact that we are destroying the
very systems that protect us from natural disaster. For instance, wetlands are seen as fair game for
agriculture. Where wetlands exist, they must be drained for crops, plantations or development. They
are not regarded as important to the natural balance and are regarded "simply as swamps". But these
swamps are absolutely crucial to our supply of water and we cannot survive as a species without fresh
water. If we preserved our wetlands, we would be less vulnerable to floods, droughts or disease. For
this reason the Mondi Wetlands Project (MWP), in prepa-ration for World Wetlands Day on February 2,
is lobbying for wetlands to become an integral part of water resource management in South Africa.
Wetlands play a vital role in managing the limited water we do have, such as purifying it, stockpiling
it, damming and slowly releasing it. The slowly growing realisation that without wetlands we will have
no fresh water, has led the United Nations general assembly to proclaim the year 2003 as the
International Year of Fresh Water. In the 20th century, our population trebled but our use of fresh water
increased sixfold. Time is running out and so is the fresh water. The greatest irony is that sufficient
water falls as precipitation but because the wetlands are disappearing, it is not retained on the land as
fresh water but disappears into the sea. "There is hope though, this is not yet irreparable," says
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
214
national manager of the Mondi Wetlands Project, Mr David Lindley. "If we get all the stakeholders
involved in integrated water resource management we can make enormous strides in reversing the
damage caused by our vanishing wetlands," he said. MWP believes that one of the most effective ways
of protecting wetlands and reaping their benefits is to enshrine the wise use of wetlands in integrated
catchment management programmes. A wetland is literally worth its weight in gold. A recent
assessment of the global value of wetland ecosystems put them, at a conserva-tive estimate, at a
whopping US$ 14,9 trillion! So, the next world war will probable not be fought over oil or ideology, it
will be fought over water. Without oil your car won’t function, but without fresh water, all living things
will disappear. Man could become the ultimate victim of his own foolishness.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
215
Impact – Coral Reefs
The Embargo is preventing US-Cuba cooperation on oil spills which would have
devastating effects on coral reefs and fisheries
Conell, Research Associate for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 09
(Christina, 6-12-09, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be
an Environmental Duo?,” http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmentalduo/, 6/26/13, ND)
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 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.
Reefs are key to planetary survival
Romm, Ph.D. in physics from MIT, 9
(Joseph, Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, “Imagine a World without
Fish: Deadly ocean acidification — hard to deny, harder to geo-engineer, but not hard to stop — is
subject of documentary,” http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/09/02/204589/a-sea-change-imagine-aworld-without-fish-ocean-acidification-film/, 6-30-13)
Other continental shelf regions may also be impacted where anthropogenic CO2-enriched water is being
upwelled onto the shelf. Or listen to the Australia’s ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies,
which warns: The world’s oceans are becoming more acid, with potentially devastating consequences
for corals and the marine organisms that build reefs and provide much of the Earth’s breathable
oxygen. The acidity is caused by the gradual buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere,
dissolving into the oceans. Scientists fear it could be lethal for animals with chalky skeletons which
make up more than a third of the planet’s marine life”¦. Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons are
at the base of the marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form
their skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it harder for the animals
to form their skeletal structures (calcify). “Analysis of coral cores shows a steady drop in calcification
over the last 20 years,” says Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of CoECRS and the University of
Queensland. “There’s not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air above and it
dissolves into the oceans. “When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you
put calcification out of business in the oceans.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
216
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Biodiversity **
217
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
218
Module – Overfishing
US Cuba cooperation is key to sustain biodiversity – the alternative results in
ecosystem degradation and overfishing
PR Newswire 13
(“United States Scientists Visit Cuba to Discuss Overfishing, Coral Reefs, Ocean Energy
and Ocean Issues”,http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-statesscientists-visit-cuba-to-discuss-overfishing-coral-reefs-ocean-energy-and-ocean-issues65763572.html, 6/24/13, AZ)
RALEIGH, N.C., Oct. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Environmental Defense Fund will send a team of
experts to Havana, Cuba, on Sunday to discuss ways to eliminate overfishing, protect coral reefs,
conserve coastal areas, and tap potential ocean energy - a signal that greater environmental
cooperation may be on the horizon. EDF scientists and policy experts and Cuban scientists and
environmental officials will have a series of meetings about how the United States and Cuba can work
together to protect ocean waters and marine resources shared by the two countries. The meetings
come on the heels of a September visit to the United States by Cuban environmental officials.¶ "The
United States and Cuba share many ecological resources, but the countries have different ways of
managing them," said Daniel Whittle, a senior attorney at EDF and director of its Cuba Program.
"Fishing, coastal development, and offshore oil and gas exploration in Cuba can have impacts in the
United States, and vice-versa. The sooner we work together to manage shared resources and find
solutions common problems, the sooner we'll see benefits for the people, the environment and the
economy in both countries."¶ EDF has asked the Obama administration to ease policies that limit
scientific exchanges between U.S. and Cuban scientists and conservation professionals. Last month the
U.S. State Department issued visas for four Cuban environmental officials to attend scientific meetings
hosted by EDF in Washington, DC, and Sarasota, Florida--the first such meetings held in the U.S. in
several years.¶ "These precedent-setting meetings are a hopeful sign that greater environmental
cooperation is on the horizon," said Dr. Doug Rader, chief ocean scientist for EDF. "An important first
step toward managing our shared marine resources is to share good science and good ideas. We have
a lot to learn from each other."¶ Rader added that expanded scientific and management cooperation
can help address the growing threats to coral reefs, ocean fish populations, habitats for migratory birds,
marine mammals and turtles, and biodiversity.¶ Just 90 miles from the tip of Florida, Cuba shares a large
amount of ocean territory with the United States. Because of the prevailing currents and Cuba's
proximity, preserving its marine resources is critically important to the economies of coastal
communities in both countries.
Overfishing kills food security
Koster, operator of overfishing.org, 2011
(Pepijin, 2/1/2011, “Why is Overfishing a Problem?” Online:
http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_overfishing_a_problem.php FG)
In the first chapter we already discussed that globally fishing fleets are at least two to three times as
large as needed to take present day catches of fish and other marine species. To explain why
overfishing is a problem we first have to get an idea on the scale of the problem. This is best done by
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
219
looking at some figures published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. 1 The FAO scientists
publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report
is generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of problems but does show the key issue
and trends. Due to the difficulty of aggregating and combining the data it can be stated that the SOFIA
report is a number of years behind of the real situation. 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited 20% are
moderately exploited 17% are overexploited 7% are depleted 1% is recovering from depletion The
above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks are either overexploited or depleted. Another
52% is fully exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation (maximum sustainable
production level) and collapse. Thus a total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to overexploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish
stocks are already gone. In the real world all this comes down to two serious problems. We are losing
species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under
stress and at risk of collapse. We are in risk of losing a valuable food source many depend upon for
social, economical or dietary reasons. The single best example of the ecological and economical dangers
of overfishing is found in Newfoundland, Canada. In 1992 the once thriving cod fishing industry came to
a sudden and full stop when at the start of the fishing season no cod appeared. Overfishing allowed by
decades of fisheries mismanagement was the main cause for this disaster that resulted in almost 40.000
people losing their livelihood and an ecosystem in complete state of decay. Now, fifteen years after the
collapse, many fishermen are still waiting for the cod to return and communities still haven't recovered
from the sudden removal of the regions single most important economical driver. The only people
thriving in this region are the ones fishing for crab, a species once considered a nuisance by the
Newfoundland fishermen. It's not only the fish that is affected by fishing. As we are fishing down the
food web 3 the increasing effort needed to catch something of commercial value marine mammals,
sharks, sea birds, and non commercially viable fish species in the web of marine biodiversity are
overexploited, killed as bycatch and discarded (up to 80% of the catch for certain fisheries), and
threatened by the industrialized fisheries. 4 Scientists agree that at current exploitation rates many
important fish stocks will be removed from the system within 25 years. Dr. Daniel Pauly describes it as
follows: “The big fish, the bill fish, the groupers, the big things will be gone. It is happening now. If
things go unchecked, we'll have a sea full of little horrible things that nobody wants to eat. We might
end up with a marine junkyard dominated by plankton.”
Food shortages lead to World War III
Calvin, theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington, 98
(William, Atlantic Monthly, January, The Great Climate Flip-Flop, Vol 281, No. 1, 1998, p. 47-64, 6-31-13)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries
to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would
go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use
their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources,
driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for
the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's
vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as
Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do
so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
220
Ext – Enviro Coop K/
US –Cuba cooperation is essential on the environment – top environmental groups say
Newhouse 12 – Center for International Policy Cuba delegate, NatGeo editor and publisher, and
member of the Cuba Advisory Group
(Elizabeth, “The U.S. Must Work With Cuba on the Environment”,
http://cipcubareport.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/the-u-s-must-work-with-cuba-onthe-environment/, 6/24/13, AZ)
It should be an article of faith that the environment is immune from U.S. politics where U.S. interests
are clearly at stake. That’s mostly the case with other countries, but not with Cuba. In New York last
week a workshop organized by The New York Botanical Garden (NYBG) highlighted this aberration—
and its damaging effects. Participants included a number of key non-governmental groups, such as the
Environmental Defense Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the
Mote Marine Laboratory. They strongly agreed that measures must be taken to make it easier to
cooperate on the environment with Cuba.¶ Cuba and the United States, whose territorial waters meet
in the Gulf of Mexico and the Florida Straits, have much in common ecologically, as Brian Boom of the
NYBG pointed out in his paper “Biodiversity without Borders,” (PDF). This shared biodiversity ranges
from threatened ecosystems, such as coral reefs and mangrove forests, to thousands of migratory
species, including the Monarch butterfly, the Atlantic bluefin tuna, and the Hawksbill turtle. Many
species have economic value and others are seriously endangered; still others are invasive and highly
disruptive, while others carry serious disease like dengue fever. All of them require ongoing study and
monitoring.¶ Even more urgent, natural disasters (hurricanes) and man-made threats (oil spills) can
cause enormous damage that call for rapid bilateral solutions. The recent start of oil exploration off
Cuba’s north coast points up the compelling need to prepare for a spill—and for the harm that will be
done to the marine environment even without one.¶ However, between the U.S. and Cuba there exists
no governmental cooperation on the environment as on much else. In 2007, Wayne Smith and CIP
determined to work around this vacuum by organizing a conference in Cancun, Mexico, of key Cuban
scientists and environmentalists and a group of their U.S. NGO counterparts (Conference report is
here). The group, the first of its kind, agreed on priorities for research and conservation in the Gulf of
Mexico and set up an organization to establish the gulf as a model for protection. The organization, now
including Mexico and called the Trinational Initiative, plans to hold its fifth meeting this year.¶ CIP’s
initiative and other subsequent workshops and conferences have helped ease the way for
environmental NGOs to work in Cuba. It is still far from easy, however. While visas for scientists and
others to go and come are much more available under the Obama administration, tough procedural
obstacles exist in both countries. These include obtaining licenses for people and equipment, funding
limitations due to the embargo, and difficulties in securing project approvals, permits, and research
visas from the Cuban government.¶ As Brian Boom’s White Paper concluded—and workshop
participants vehemently agreed—the ecological stakes urgently call for a government-to-government
accord that will allow professionals to work together on the critical environmental issues that extend
beyond boundaries. Nature knows no nations!
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
221
Ext – Government K/
Government to government collaboration key to solving the environment –
empirically proven
Boom, Director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, 12
(Brian M. Boom, September 2012, “Biodiversity without Borders: Advancing U.S.-Cuba Cooperation
through ¶ Environmental Research,” Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 3 (September 2012*). ¶
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders. Accessed June 24, 2013,
RJ)
Nature knows no boundaries, and given the number and scale of environmental ¶ problems shared by
Cuba and the United States, combined with the multitude of ¶ impediments to finding joint solutions to
these problems, the best way to enhance ¶ environmental cooperation between the two countries
would be through the ¶ establishment of a bilateral agreement on this theme. ¶ The ecological stakes
are too high for Cuba and the United States to rely on ¶ anything short of a government-togovernment accord to formalize, catalyze, and ¶ facilitate cooperation on environmental problems of
mutual concern. Various ¶ models for such an agreement exist: the United States has joint statements on
¶ environmental cooperation with Spain and Italy, an agreement on air quality with ¶ Canada, and a
memorandum of understanding on environmental protection with ¶ India, among others. ¶ Such a
bilateral agreement could logically take advantage of the collective ¶ experiences of the U.S.-based
environmental NGO community in conducting ¶ collaborative initiatives with Cuban counterparts over
many years and, in some ¶ cases, decades. The focus of such a bilateral agreement should be on
helping to ¶ facilitate the activities by NGOs that are currently underway and encouraging new ¶
initiatives by NGOs in consultation with and the approval of Cuban authorities. ¶ The elements of such an
agreement should take into account the difficulties ¶ mentioned above and the following considerations:
strengthened Castro’s economic hold on the country. “The International Trade Commission has
estimated that, in the absence of sanctions, U.S. exports to Cuba would grow to more than $1 billion.
Meat exports from the U.S. could be as much as $76 million, while wheat exports could be as much as
$52 million.”12 Yet, since 2005, new obstacles imposed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
have made the flow of U.S. wheat, corn, soy, powdered milk, and poultry more unreliable, costing
U.S. companies $100 million in deals that Cuba made with firms in other countries.13 In the aftermath
of OFAC’s maneuvers, Members of Congress say “Rice sales have fallen by 43% by value and the value
of dairy also fell 43%. Apple exports have fallen by 64% by value, while the value of cotton sales
declined 55%. The value of our poultry exports has fallen by more than 19%, while wheat sales have
fallen nearly 14%. These lost U.S. sales are being made up by our competitors.”14 As American
agricultural sales fell, a November 2005 agreement – worth $20 million – lifted Canadian wheat sales to
Cuba to their highest level since 1990. The sale of 100,000 tons of Canada Western Red Spring was the
largest single sale to Cuba since 1997. The embargo bars oil exploration by American firms; this is
especially harmful now, as Cuba is encouraging exploration in off-shore blocks in 1,660 square miles of
its waters in the Gulf of Mexico. India’s largest staterun petroleum exploration firm won the rights to
search for oil in these waters.15 Cuba’s state oil company also signed an agreement with Spain’s
Repsol YPF, Norway’s Hydro, and India’s OVL in May 2006 for the exploration of its six offshore blocks.
Venezuela’s state-owned oil company will also join in oil exploration in Cuba’s north coast. According to
Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), agreements like these could mean “forever closing the door on those
resources to the U.S. industry.”16 Bilateral trade between China and Cuba reached $777 million in
2005, $560 million of which were Chinese exports cnbv Cuba.17 Chinese appliances and transportation
services are flooding into Cuba. The Financial Times reports “Cuba’s ports are being revamped with
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
222
Chinese equipment, in part to handle the millions of Chinese domestic appliances that began arriving
last year. Cuba is turning to Chinese rather than Western companies to modernize its crippled
transportation system at a cost of more than $1 billion.”18 Cuba has purchased 100 locomotives from
China for $130 million,19 1,000 Chinese buses for urban and interprovincial transportation,20 and
30,000 Chinese refrigerators.21 The Brattle Group reports that an end to travel restrictions to Cuba
would lead to increased demand for air and cruise travel to the region. Without restrictions, it is
estimated that U.S. economic output would “expand annually by $1.18 billion to $1.61 billion. This
expansion would create from 16,888 to 23,020 new jobs.22
Cooperation between US and Cuba is proven to solve the environment – current
partnerships prove
Waitt Foundation 13 – institute dedicated to protection and conservation of oceans and marine
resources
(“CUBAN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE”, http://waittfoundation.org/cubanenvironmental-science, 6/24/13, AZ)
EDF’s work to protect important shared marine resources in the U.S. Southeast, the Gulf of Mexico
and Caribbean depends upon close working partnerships with world-class — but under-resourced and
little-known — Cuban environmental scientists. A biodiversity hotspot, Cuba has regionally important
marine and coastal ecosystems. With connectivity to the United States, the window of opportunity is
now to share our resources and to work together towards solutions.¶ Over the past 12 years, and with
a special license from the U.S. Department of Treasury, EDF has built strong relationships with Cuban
environmental institutions and Cuban environmental scientists, who are among the best educated
and most experienced in the region. Cuban scientists’ rigorous research has informed important
environmental policy initiatives, including the Cuban government’s decision to include 25% of the
insular shelf in marine protected areas (MPAs). The current 108 MPAs represent the following:¶ - 15% of
the Cuban insular shelf - 16 fish spawning sites¶ - 35% coral reefs - 31% seagrass beds¶ - 27% mangroves¶
However, because of inadequate funding and other constraints on research, field work in Cuba has
been limited and much remains unknown about critical issues such as overfishing, the benefits of
MPAs, and ecosystem vulnerability to changing ocean conditions. These gaps in knowledge hamper
the development of sound environmental policy and effective fisheries management.¶ Project Goals¶
With support from the Waitt Foundation, EDF is launching a new initiative in 2013, led by Dan Whittle,
to support collaborative field research with scientists from Cuba’s Center for Marine Research. This
initiative will enable teams of Cuban and American scientists to carry out a series of two- to fourweek research cruises aboard the Cuban research vessel Felipe Poey and will support year-round port
sampling of shark landings in at least four Cuban ports.¶ The overarching project goal is to generate
scientific research that can inform sound policy to improve the performance of fisheries and MPA
networks. Specific objectives are to:¶ 1. Facilitate Cuban environmental scientists’ research and promote
international awareness of Cuba’s high-quality marine science.¶ 2. Collect biological and ecological data
essential to the management of sharks and selected reef fish.¶ 3. Assess the biological, ecological and
socioeconomic performance of existing Cuban MPAs.¶ 4. Characterize the socioeconomic contribution of
fisheries and MPAs to the economy.¶ 5. Use research results to inform conservation and management
strategies.¶ Field Expertise¶ Daniel Whittle directs EDF’s work to advance conservation of marine and
coastal ecosystems in Cuba. He works with Cuban scientists, lawyers and resource managers to
identify and implement collaborative strategies for fisheries management, coral reef conservation,
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
223
and sustainable coastal development in Cuba and the region.¶ For the last decade, Whittle has been
collaborating with Cuban fishermen, scientists and environmental officials on ways to protect shared
resources like fish and marine mammals. Operating under a special license from the U.S Treasury
Department, he’s also working to ensure that the right safeguards are in place for projected oil
development off Cuba’s northwest coast.¶
Cooperation is key to preserving marine environments – affects US economy and
natural habitats
Environmental Defense Fund 12
(“U.S. and Cuba seek common ground”, http://www.edf.org/oceans/us-and-cubaseek-common-ground, 6/24/13, AZ)
Vast untapped reserves of “black gold” are thought to lie off Cuba’s north shore—enough, experts say,
to wean the country from its dependence on Venezuelan oil imports. This year Spanish oil giant Repsol
plans to begin exploratory drilling in deep waters 50 miles off Key West, and foreign oil companies
from Russia, Malaysia, Brazil, India and Venezuela, among others, are lining up behind them.¶ For the
United States, Cuba and Mexico, the risks of drilling in deepwaters of the Gulf of Mexico are
enormous. Experts warn that a large spill in Cuban waters could be more catastrophic than the BP
disaster, given the three countries’ sensitive marine ecosystems.¶ The problems could be compounded
by delays in getting the expertise and state-of-the-art technology needed to deal with a large,
deepwater accident. U.S. policy restricts American companies from working with Cuban enterprises to
protect the waters we share.¶ Can environmental concerns bridge the political gulf?¶ “For half a century,
a political gulf has divided our two countries,” says EDF’s chief oceans scientist Doug Rader. “It is time
for a pragmatic approach that would help Cuba prepare for the worst, while developing a strong
foundation for our shared environmental future.Ӧ Over the past decade, Cuban environmental lawyers
have been developing regulations for offshore oil and gas drilling that include strict oversight. During
the BP oil spill crisis in 2010, EDF’s oceans staff provided regular updates to Cuban environmental
officials to help them assess what damage might occur to the island’s ecosystems and coastal
communities.¶ Luckily, oil from the BP blowout did not wash onto Cuban beaches. But given
prevailing currents and winds, neither country may be as fortunate next time around. EDF urges that
the United States begin a dialogue with the Cuban and Mexican governments on oil and gas drilling in
the Gulf.¶ The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill recommends that
international standards be developed and specifically that “it is in our country’s national interest to
negotiate now with these near neighbors to agree on a common, rigorous set of standards [and] a
system for regulatory oversight…”¶ Tapping clean energy to reduce oil imports¶ As part of a national
strategy to gain energy independence and reduce global warming pollution, Cuba also hopes to develop
cleaner sources of energy. In 2008, at the request of our Cuban partners we organized an international
symposium on ocean energy to explore ways to develop this largely untapped source without harming
the environment.¶ Cuba provides good conditions for a variety of ocean energy options—including wind
and current—and may prove ideal for ocean thermal energy conversion. As with any large-scale
technology, building and operating energy facilities may pose risks to marine life and habitat. Sensitive
ecosystem —such as coral reefs and mangroves, and important nursery and rookery areas for fish,
marine mammals, seabirds and sea turtles—must be protected.¶ “With good standards and policy in
place, Cuba could be a model for clean energy development in the Caribbean,” says Dr. Rod Fujita, EDF
senior scientist and director of Ocean Innovations.¶ Fostering further cooperation¶ Cooperation is as
critical to U.S. interests as it is to Cuba’s. Cuban waters provide vital spawning and nursery grounds
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
224
for snapper, grouper and other commercially important reef fish in the United States. Cuba is also the
major stopover point on migration routes to and from South America for most of the familiar
songbirds along the U.S. East Coast.¶ And the two nations quite likely share a recently discovered
deepwater coral ecosystem that extends north to North Carolina. “Though the United States and Cuba
share many ecological resources, we have different ways of managing them,” says EDF attorney Dan
Whittle, director of our Cuba program. “Fishing, coastal development, and offshore oil and gas
exploration in Cuba can have huge impacts on the United States and vice-versa.Ӧ
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
225
AT: Cuba’s Environment is Fine
Cuba needs outside help to solve environmental problems
Conell, Research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 9
(Christina, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an Environmental Duo?“,
http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/, 6/25/13, AZ)
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,
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
¶
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
226
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.¶
Cuba – US environmental cooperation allows Washington to brand itself as ecofriendly
Conell, Research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 9
(Christina, “The U.S. and Cuba: Destined to be an Environmental Duo?“,
http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/, 6/25/13, AZ)
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
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
227
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.¶
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Oil Shocks**
228
229
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Module – Oil Shocks
Oil shocks are coming now –
Dow Jones Business News, 6/24
(Dow Jone Business News, 6/24/13, “Oil Climbs on Supply Disruption Concerns”,
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/oil-climbs-on-supply-disruption-concerns-2013062400874, 6/30/13, PD)
NEW YORK--Oil prices rebounded Monday on a potential decline in crude shipped from Canada, the
U.S.'s biggest source of foreign oil. Light, sweet crude for August delivery settled higher by $1.49, or
1.6%, at $95.18 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was the biggest dollar rise in prices
since May 3. ICE North Sea Brent crude oil for August delivery settled 25 cents higher at $101.16 a
barrel. The gap between Nymex and Brent crude narrowed to $5.98 a barrel, the closest the prices have
been since January 2011. The gains in Nymex crude prices came after Canadian pipeline operator
Enbridge Inc. (ENB, ENB.T) said it had shut down and isolated a pipeline north of Cheecham, Alberta,
after detecting a spill of some 750 barrels of crude oil that it believes was caused by heavy rain and
flooding. Enbridge said it shut down all of its other pipelines in the area as well. The region around
Cheecham is a major center of oil-sands production, but it wasn't immediately clear how much oil was
affected by the Enbridge pipeline shutdowns. Canada accounted for about 28% of crude-oil imports in
the week ended June 14. According to preliminary U.S. data, volume from Canada averaged 2.345
million barrels a day in that week. "Oil can't go to market" and there is a need to find alternative
sources of oil, said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates. "It is unclear how long the outage
will be."
Lifting the embargo is key to give US new oil acquisition capability BMI ‘08
(Business Monitor International, 8/1/08, “Havana Affair - Can Oil Soothe US-Cuba
Relations?”, L-N, 6/23/13, PD)
In 2009 offshore exploration will begin in Cuba's section of the Gulf of Mexico (GoM). Should discoveries
be made, oil could prove the catalyst for a thaw in relations between the US and Cuba, long-time
enemies in the Florida Straits. Cuba potentially offers the US a new source of oil on its doorstep.
Accessing this oil, and the potential revenue US companies could generate from participating in the
broader Cuban oil industry, would require a radical alteration in US policy. While any reform to the US
embargo of Cuba, imposed to topple the communist government of Fidel Castro, would be
controversial in the US, domestic energy requirements may force the US to reconsider a 40 year-old
staple of US foreign policy. Source: EIA Drilling was scheduled to begin in 2008 but has been delayed
twice, due to the tight supply of rigs globally, the need for more downstream facilities to process oil and
the effects of the longstanding US embargo. Cuba's offshore acreage is believed to hold vast
hydrocarbon reserves potential, with estimates of potential oil reserves running as high as 9.3bn
barrels (bbl). The US Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that the North Cuba basin contains around
4.6bn bbl of oil, about 257bn cubic metres (bcm) of gas and some 0.9bn bbl of natural gas liquids (NGL),
equivalent to around 0.4% of global or 15.7% of US proven reserves. This could leave Cuba with an
energy endowment roughly on a par with Ecuador. Within the basin, the principal area is the North
Cuba Foreland Basin - located offshore, approximately 70km from Florida - which contains 70-80% of
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
230
estimated reserves. Cuba currently produces approximately 75,000 barrels of oil per day (b/d). The
remainder of Cuba's oil requirement is met by imports from Venezuela, agreed on preferential terms in
exchange for health, education and other services. Cuba is actively searching for international partners
to explore in the GoM and, so far, has not found itself short of offers. Spanish-Argentine major
RepsolYPF leads a consortium that was expected to begin drilling in the offshore basin in 2008. Six other
foreign companies have signed exploration agreements with Cuba's state-owned oil company
Companhia Cubana de Petróleo (Cupet). Cuba has divided its 112,000sq km economic exclusion zone
into 59 exploration blocks. So far 28 of these have been auctioned. Other foreign companies active in
Cuba include Norway's StatoilHydro, India's state-run Oil & Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC),
PetroVietnam, Malaysia's Petronas, Canada's Sherritt International and China's Sinopec. Latin American
state-run oil companies have also taken an interest in Cuba. In January 2008 Brazilian major and
deepwater specialist Petrobras said it was considering investing in the country. Brazil offered Cuba up to
$1USbn in food and infrastructure credits, in return for Cuba's granting Petrobras rights to explore its
deepwater reserves. In May 2008 Petrobras said it was studying a block in deepwater off Cuba for
possible exploration. Venezuela's state-owned Petróleos de Venezuela (PdVSA) is a major player in the
Cuban oil industry. As well as supplying Cuba with the majority of its oil, PdVSA is helping Cuba start and
expand a Soviet-built oil refinery. Drainage It is somewhat ironic that a Cuban drilling programme would
be less than 70km (50 miles) from the US coast, more than twice as close to the American mainland as
US companies are permitted to drill owing to legislation protecting Florida's coastline. In early June 2008
a US House of Representatives panel voted nine to six against lifting the 27-year moratorium on offshore
drilling. The amendment proposed by US Representative John Peterson would have allowed drilling off
Florida's Gulf Coast and off the Atlantic coasts of North Carolina, Virginia and South Carolina. US
Representative Jeff Flake, a Republican from Arizona, who has introduced bills to lift the drilling
embargo, said there were environmental concerns about non-US companies drilling so close to the US
coastline. Flake said US companies are interested in exploration offshore Cuba but have not publically
opposed the embargo Washington imposed against Havana in 1962. Cuba says it would welcome US
companies to its offshore acreage. It displayed its intent in 2006 by sending Cupet officials to a
conference in Mexico City attended by US major ExxonMobil and refiner Valero. The conference,
however, became a flash-point when the Bush administration told the US hotel company
accommodating Cuba's representative in Mexico City that it was violating US policy by hosting paying
Cuban guests. The hotel ordered the Cubans to leave. So having been burnt once before it is not
surprising that the US oil industry has decided to lie low on Cuban oil. Havana Au Go-Go? BMI is
optimistic that Cuba has significant offshore hydrocarbon reserves. Relations with the US also look set
to change. US President George W. Bush, who has toughened the embargo on Cuba, leaves office in
2009, while Cuba's new president Raúl Castro is not the anti-US firebrand his brother Fidel was when in
office. Raul has already taken small steps to liberalise the Cuban economy. Raúl is focused on the need
to boost agricultural production and has made this a focus of his administration. A combination of
economic need, energy requirements, environmental concerns, US company expertise and new
leadership may push the US and Cuba closer, increasing the potential of an embargo relaxation.
Castro's legacy, however, remains suggesting risks to any foreign investment. While oil may force the
US to review its policy towards Cuba, a dramatic shift is unlikely in the short term. We believe that
potential opportunities exist, particularly for Latin American state-run oil companies, but other
international oil companies (IOCs) will have to tread cautiously.
231
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Ext – Cuba Has Oil
Cuba provides an attractive market for oil; plan key for U.S. acquisition
Siegelbaum, Writer for U.S. News, ‘09
(Robert, US News, 4/13/09, “Obama's Revamp of Cuba Travel Policy Is Overdue, But
the Embargo Should Come Next”, L-N, 6/23/13, PD)
Take, for example, energy. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Cuba's offshore oil fields hold 5
billion barrels of oil and 10 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. (Cuba's government, not surprisingly, sets
the oil figure at 20 billion barrels, which would put it on par with the United States.) Whether you're a
conservationist concerned about despoiling the seas or a member of the "drill, baby, drill" crowd
worried that foreign countries like China might get oil from just off our shores, there are compelling
reasons to engage Cuba.
Oil is available in Cuba- US uniquely key to fixing oil spills and Investing in the market
Sandoski, A Member of Technical Advisory Board of Energy Quest, ‘11
(Richard, Sustainable Development law and policy, ”Cuban Offshore Drilling: Preparation and Prevention
within the Framework of the United States’ Embargo,” http://digitalcommons
.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1497&context=sdlp, Fall ’11, EB)
A U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Cuba’s offshore ¶ oil fields hold at least four and a half billion
barrels of recoverable oil and ten trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Cupet, the ¶ state-owned Cuban
energy company, insists that actual reserves ¶ are double that of the U.S. estimate. One estimate
indicates ¶ that Cuba could be producing 525,000 barrels of oil per day. ¶ Given this vast resource, Cuba
has already leased offshore oil ¶ exploration blocks to operators from Spain, Norway, and India.¶
Offshore oil discoveries in Cuba are placing increasing pressure for the United States to end the
embargo. First, U.S. energy companies are eager to compete for access to Cuban oil reserves.¶
Secondly, fears of a Cuban oil spill are argued to warrant U.S. ¶ investment and technology. Finally,
the concern over Cuban ¶ offshore drilling renews cries that the embargo is largely a failure and
harms human rights.¶ economics: u.s. companies want in¶ For U.S. companies, the embargo creates
concern that they ¶ will lose out on an opportunity to develop a nearby resource.¶ Oil companies have
a long history of utilizing political pressure ¶ for self-serving purposes. American politicians, ever
fearful of ¶ high-energy costs, are especially susceptible to oil-lobby pressures. This dynamic was
exemplified in 2008, when then-Vice ¶ President Dick Cheney told the board of directors of the U.S. ¶
Chamber of Commerce that “oil is being drilled right now sixty ¶ miles off the coast of Florida. But
we’re not doing it, the Chinese ¶ are, in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the
communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is ¶ more supply.”¶ This pressure for U.S.
investment in oil is exacerbated by ¶ America’s expected increase in consumption rates. Oil company
stocks are valued in large part on access to reserves. Thus, ¶ more leases, including those in Cuban
waters, equal higher stock ¶ valuation. “The last thing that American energy companies ¶ want is to be
trapped on the sidelines by sanctions while European, Canadian and Latin American rivals are free to
develop ¶ new oil resources on the doorstep of the United States.”¶ the BP disaster adds to concerns¶
Further pressure on the embargo comes from those voicing ¶ environmental concerns about Cuba’s
drilling plans. These ¶ concerns are undoubtedly more poignant in the wake of British Petroleum’s
(“BP”) historically tragic Deep-water Horizon ¶ oil spill. Currently, there is no agreement between the
United ¶ States and Cuba to deal with oil spills. The embargo would prevent, or at least hamper, any
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
232
efforts by U.S. companies to aid any ¶ cleanup efforts. In addition, the embargo bans U.S.
technologies ¶ designed to prevent or contain oil spills from being sold to Cuba.¶ David Guggenheim, a
senior fellow at the Washington ¶ Ocean Foundation punctuated the United States’ concerns over ¶ the
potential impacts of Cuba’s drilling by remarking that “the ¶ Gulf isn’t going to respect any boundaries
when it comes to oil ¶ spills.” This statement was recently exemplified by Cuba’s ¶ own expressed fears
that oil from the BP disaster would reach ¶ its shores. The Deep Horizon oil spill’s threat was enough that
¶ several Cuban leaders called for the reexamination of Cuba’s ¶ own plan to extract oil off its shores.
Nonetheless, Cuba’s oil ¶ exploration plans seem unfazed.¶ opponents argue the embargo harms
human¶ rights and does Not work¶ Many critics of the embargo complain that the policy is ¶
inherently ineffective and actually exacts a human toll. They ¶ note that many of the societal ills of
the Cuban people are ¶ furthered by the embargo’s economic impacts on Cuba. For ¶ instance, the
American Association for World Health’s yearlong study of Cuba concluded that the embargo itself
has led ¶ to increased suffering and death in Cuba, a condition that has ¶ been aggravated by the
passage of the Helms-Burton Act.¶ The study found that “the declining availability of foodstuffs, ¶
medicines and such basic medical supplies as replacement parts ¶ for 30-year-old X-ray machines is
taking a tragic human toll.”¶ Further, they argue that the opposition of the Cuban people to ¶ the
embargo is ignored. Opponents view the embargo as a hypocritical U.S. policy that allows enthusiastic
trade with China, a ¶ communist nation where political oppression is at least as great ¶ as in Cuba. These
criticisms put further demands on the United ¶ States to end the embargo in the interest of human
rights.
233
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Ext – Lift K/ Oil
Embargo kills oil exploration
Helman Forbes staff reporter 12
(Christopher, “US Should Drop Cuba Embargo for Oil Exploration”,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/12/12/u-s-should-drop-cubaembargo-for-oil-exploration/, 6/25/13, AZ)
In a few months Spanish oil company Repsol will start drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba, in a spot just
70 miles south of Key West. Soon Repsol–and its JV partners Norway’s Statoil and India’s ONGC–will be
joined by rigs from PetroVietnam, Malaysia’s Petronas and Venezuela’s PDVSA. But you won’t see any
U.S. companies there. Inexplicably, the U.S. maintains its economic embargo against the Castro
regime.This wrong-headed policy represents a dangerous threat to the environment and a huge
missed opportunity to the U.S. oil industry. The U.S. embargo will do nothing to prevent oil drilling
from taking place in Cuban waters. But it will prevent that work from being done by the most
experienced companies with the highest-quality equipment. Norway’s Statoil is a proven operator with
a long history in the North Sea and the Gulf. The rest of those companies are just getting started
offshore.¶ A group of U.S. lawmakers in September urged Repsol (ticker: REPYY.PK) to call off its Cuba
plans or face the threat of U.S. lawsuits. Repsol wisely called that bluff.¶ At least the Obama
administration is doing something to ensure that Repsol’s drilling rig is up to snuff. According to an
excellent article from Bloomberg today, Repsol’s Chinese-built Scarabeo 9 rig will soon by boarded by
four U.S. inspectors (two from the Coast Guard, two from the Dept. of Interior) who will do what they
can to check out the rig and watch some drills. But, according to the article, there will be real limits to
what the inspectors can inspect. They won’t get to check the rig’s all-important blowout preventor, or
the well casing or drilling fluids that are to be used. Though the U.S. inspectors will discuss any
concerns they have with Repsol, they will have no enforcement authority.¶ Although the offshore
industry’s best service companies and parts manufacturers are right here on the U.S. Gulf coast, Repsol
will have to train its people and scrounge for spare parts from the rest of the world.¶ But here’s
something that completely blows my mind. The administration, again, according to the Bloomberg
article, has granted some U.S. companies the license to respond to an oil spill were it to occur in Cuban
waters. The government won’t say how many companies have that license or who they are, but there’s
at least two of them: Wild Well Control and Helix Energy Solutions Group. Helix plans to stage a subsea
containment cap on the U.S. coast so it can quickly respond to any Cuban blowout.¶ Of course it’s smart
and safe for the U.S. government to put defensive measures in place in the event of a spill, but the
message to the industry is clear: we refuse to give superior U.S. operators the license to drill for oil in
Cuba, but we want to make sure you’re ready to clean up any problems.¶ And the message to Cuba:
we’re not going to let you use our engineers, just our janitors. Knowing that a top-notch American cleanup crew is on standby in case of a blowout is not a big incentive for Cuba to keep its own regulators on
top of things.¶ Think about Cuba in relation to U.S. oil adventures in the rest of the world. Even if Cuba
really were a tyrannical threat to U.S. interests, there’s myriad countries where U.S. oil companies
have done business that are no more democratic than Cuba. They include Venezuela, Saudi Arabia,
Burma, Libya, Equatorial Guinea and Kazakhstan.¶ The Castros’ days as rulers of Cuba are numbered.
The embargo stick hasn’t brought regime change, and has only forced Cuba into the arms of autocrats
like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Better to use the carrot of capitalism to gradually bring Cuba into the
U.S. sphere of influence. The oil industry is a great place to start.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
234
US could access Cuban oil fields if we lift the embargo
Yapp, the telegraphs correspondent in brazil 11
(Robin, the telegraph: “US could lift Cuba embargo after oil discovery,”
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl dnews/centralamericaandthe caribbean/cuba/8544870/UScould-lift-Cuba-embargo-after-oil-discovery.html> May 29 2011, EB)
The five decade-long United States embargo against Cuba could finally be lifted after the discovery of an
enormous oil field in Cuban waters. The US imposed embargo on Cuba is the world's longest-running
embargo has endured in part because there was little the US wanted to buy from its impoverished
neighbor. But the discovery of between five and 20 billion barrels of oil in the deep waters off Cuba's
north coast, only 60 miles away from Florida, has made American businessmen and politicians consider
lifting the embargo. Repsol, the Spanish oil firm, will start exploratory drilling within months. If it strikes
a large deposit, the trade embargo could be significantly revised or removed, according to Professor
Mark Jones, an expert on Latin America at the Rice University of Texas. "The greater the drilling and
production, the greater the pressure will be to engage in a complete overhaul of the trade embargo,
either getting rid of it altogether or watering it down substantially," he said. "I think it is fairly realistic,
since the embargo is an anachronism of the Cold War sustained only by a misguided fear of a backlash
from anti-Castro Cuban Americans."
235
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Impact – Economy
Oil Shocks cause global recessions – empirical evidence
Labonte, Macroeconomics analyst, 4
(Marc, “The Effects of Oil Shocks on the Economy: A Review of the Empirical Evidence”,
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/1529 , Accessed 6/30/13, AZ)
Congress is concerned with preventing economic recessions and mitigating the effects of recessions.
Eight of the nine post-war recessions were accompanied by sharp increases in the price of oil. The last
four recessions followed this pattern: the 1973-1975 recession followed the oil embargo; the double
dip recession of 19801982 followed the second oil shock, which was caused by the Iranian revolution
and Iran-Iraq War; the 1990-1991 recession followed the oil price spike induced by the Gulf War; and
the 2001 recession followed a sharp rise in oil prices from 1999 to 2000. Policymakers are concerned
that the recent rise in oil prices could again spillover into the wider macroeconomy.
Oil shocks cause recession – rising inflation and 08 recession proves
Rubin, Chief Economist and Managing Director of CIBC World Markets, 11
(Jeff, “How Do Oil Shocks Cause Recessions?”,
http://www.jeffrubinssmallerworld.com/2011/01/26/how-do-oil-shocks-cause-recessions/, Accessed
6/30/13, AZ)
There are many ways that oil shocks affect the economy, and none of them is good. As the prices of
gasoline, diesel and home heating fuel rise, consumers’ energy bills eat up a growing share of their
after-tax income, forcing cutbacks in more discretionary areas of spending. The next thing you know,
people are going out to restaurants a lot less, taking fewer vacations and buying fewer clothes. ¶
Soaring oil prices also transfer billions of dollars of income from oil-consuming economies to oilproducing economies. Nearly one trillion dollars migrated from OECD economies to OPEC ones in the
record run-up of oil prices preceding the last recession. Since savings rates in countries like Saudi Arabia,
UAE and Kuwait are typically ten times what they are in major oil-consuming economies like the United
States or Western Europe, the shift in purchasing power resulted in weaker global demand.¶ But by far
the greatest impact that oil price shocks have on the global economy is the one they make on inflation
and, hence, interest rates. This linkage is the means by which they have typically delivered a mortal
blow to economic growth. Oil shocks have always given rise to growth-ending increases in interest
rates as central banks are forced to respond to the inflationary fallout they leave behind.¶ The last
recession was no exception. As oil prices soared from $35 per barrel in early 2004 to almost $150 per
barrel in the summer of 2008, consumer price inflation in the US tripled to a rate of almost six per
cent. It didn’t take long before interest rates caught up to inflation and, in the process, blew up the
massively over-leveraged subprime mortgage market and the economy with it.¶ But lest we’d
forgotten, it was the massive rise in energy inflation, and an associated rise in food prices (more on that
in future posts), that catapulted the Federal Reserve Board’s federal funds rate from a nurturing one per
cent setting in early 2004 to a level over five times that only a couple of years later. The rate of energy
inflation rose from less than one per cent to as high as 35 per cent.¶
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
236
Economic collapse causes nuclear war
Harris and Burrows, PhD European History at Cambridge and NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit, 9
(Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long
Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”
http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf, 6-31-13)
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting
and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended
consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history
may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to
Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful
effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the
sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think
that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways
in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile
economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that
terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal
will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For
believe that the
those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s
most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established
groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated
attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become
self-radicalized, particularly in the
absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most
dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost
certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran
could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire
additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable
deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a
nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could
lead to an unintended
escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close
proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian
missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack.
The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of
Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises.
36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if
protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy
scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in
interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be
essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have
important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as
China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal
stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns
inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities
could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for
multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East,
cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and
between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
237
Impact—Resource Wars
Resource conflict causes extinction
Heinberg, New College of California, 3
(Richard, New College of California, The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, p. 230, 6-30-13)
While the US has not declared war on any nation since 1945, it has nevertheless bombed or invaded a
total of 19 countries and stationed troops, or engaged in direct or indirect military action, in dozens of
others. During the Cold War, the US military apparatus grew exponentially, ostensibly in response to
the threat posed by an archrival: the Soviet Union. But after the end of the Cold War the American
military and intelligence establishments did not shrink in scale to any appreciable degree. Rather, their
implicit agenda — the protection of global resource interests emerged as the semi-explicit justification
for their continued existence. With resource hegemony came challenges from nations or sub-national
groups opposing that hegemony. But the immensity of US military might ensured that such challenges
would be overwhelmingly asymmetrical. US strategists labeled such challenges “terrorism” — a term
with a definition malleable enough to be applicable to any threat from any potential enemy, foreign
or domestic, while never referring to any violent action on the part of the US, its agents, or its allies .
This policy puts the US on a collision course with the rest of the world. If all-out competition is
pursued with the available weapons of awesome power, the result could be the destruction not just of
industrial civilization, but of humanity and most of the biosphere.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**International Law**
238
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
239
Module – International Law
The Cuban Embargo is in direct violation of U.N. international law by infringing on the
sovereignty of Cuba and it’s citizens.
Melwani, columnist for Curacao Chronicle and major in International Relations, 12
(Neelam, 11-21-12, Curacao Chronicle, “The US Embargo On Cuba: A Tangible Example
Of The Intrinsic Failure Of The United Nations General Assembly,”
http://www.curacaochronicle.com/columns/the-us-embargo-on-cuba-a-tangibleexample-of-the-intrinsic-failure-of-the-united-nations-general-assembly/, 6/24/13,
ND)
With the
codification of the embargo in US law came the direct condemnation by member states of the United
Nations (UN), a condemnation that is even more fervent today, leading member-states to pass UN General Assembly
resolutions each year for the past 21 years. Various states claim that the US embargo on Cuba runs against
international law as it infringes on the sovereignty of the Cuban state and prohibits US citizens from
doing business with them, which impinges on these citizen’s human rights. Under the charter of the UN,
each state is perceived as legally equally, however the US trade embargo on Cuba, as codified into US law is
interfering with the Cuban equality amongst states, prohibiting them from trading to their full potential.
According to the representative of China in the General Assembly, “It is disappointing to witness the lingering unilateral and discriminatory
commercial practices in today’s world of independence and multilateral cooperation among states. The
blockade violates
international law… it is a transgression to the rights of the sovereign states to peace, development,
and security and is in essence an objective of unilateral aggression and a permanent threat to the
stability of the country.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
240
Ext – Embargo Violates ILaw
Embargo violates international law
American Association for World Health, its purposes are to inform the American public
about major health challenges, 97
(March 1997, American Association for World Health, “The Impact of the U.S. Embargo
on Health & Nutrition in Cuba,”
http://www.medicc.org/resources/documents/embargo/Title,%20Prefacio.pdf, pg
296, 6/24/13, ND)
In addition to the individual protests of foreign trading partners prompted by the CDA's passage, the law has also brought about formal
denouncements from the United Nations. In four
consecutive sessions of the United Nations General Assembly, that
body has passed resolutions condemning the U.S. embargo against Cuba and calling on the United
States to rescind those aspects of its law which are violative of international law principles as well as
of the U.N. Charter. In its most recent resolution (passed on November 15. 1995) entitled Necessity of ending
the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against
Cuba." the U.N. General Assembly held, inter alia:¶ “Beaffirming, among other principles, the sovereign equality of States,
non-intervention and non-interference in their internal affairs and freedom of international trade and
navigation, which are also enshrined in many international legal instruments . . .”
The Embargo clearly violates NAFTA laws – they prevent anyone with Cuban ties from
conducting business and traveling freely
Gierbolini, Florida State University College of Law, 97
(Luisette, 1997, Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, “The Helms-Burton Act:
Inconsistency with International Law and Irrationality at their Maximum,”
http://www.heinonline.org.proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals
/jtrnlwp6&div=4&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults&terms
=inconsistency|with|international|law|and|irrationality&type=matchall#299,
Volume 9 pg. 16-17, 6/24/13, ND)
Title IV of Helms-Burton
allows the U.S. to exclude from entry¶ into the country aliens who traffic in
confiscated property.183 By¶ excluding from the U.S. aliens who directly or indirectly benefit¶ from such a
confiscation, this provision dissuades foreign investors¶ from investing into Cuba. This title is not in
accord with NAFTA's¶ chapter 19,184 which obligates the U.S. to facilitate entry into the U.S.¶ to
Mexican and Canadian citizens.185 Although NAFTA allows the¶ U.S. to deny entry to aliens for specified
reasons, "trafficking" or¶ "benefiting from confiscated land" are not among those reasons.186 Helms-Burton
prevents some otherwise eligible Mexican and¶ Canadian citizens from entering the U.S. and, therefore, violates¶ NAFTA. Furthermore,
restricting the entry of business people from¶ Canada or Mexico merely because they conduct
business with Cuba¶ is inconsistent with NAFTA's objectives of eliminating trade barriers ¶ and
increasing investment opportunities in member countries.¶ Helms-Burton's drafters apparently anticipated Mexico's and¶
Canada's claims that the Act violates NAFTA. Section 6040(b) of the¶ Act declares that NAFTA does not purport to modify or alter U.S.¶
sanctions against Cuba. However, one must question whether¶ Helms-Burton itself modifies or alters sanctions against Cuba.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
241
Our trade partners see the embargo as violation of international law – the embargo
prevents free trade
Roy, professor of international studies at the University of Miami, 97
(Joaquín, 9/1/97, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, “The HelmsBurton Law: Development, Consequences, and Legacy for Inter-American and
European-US Relations,” Vol. 39 Issue 3 pg. 77-78, 6/24/13, ND)
The Helms-Burton law's main authors and advocates in the¶ United States did not seem to show much concem for
the intemational repercussions of the legislation; the local and congressional¶ objectives appeared paramount.
US commercial partners in Europe and the Americas, however, took a path of confrontation when they¶ perceived that their
legitimate interests were at risk of serious¶ damage. They interpreted the law as a grave violation of international¶
conventions, centering on the issue of extraterritoriality. In a world¶ where free trade schemes are
seen as an engine of economic growth,¶ a legal instrument attempting to curtail the free flow of goods
and¶ investment seemed to provoke active criticism and open opposition¶ in all available forums.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
242
Impact—International Law
Absent effective international law – nuclear war is inevitable
Damrosch and Mullerson, Law Professors at Columbia, 95
(Professor of Law, Columbia, Professor of International Law, King’s, Beyond Confrontation, International Law for
the Post Cold War Era, p. 2-3, 6-31-13)
The contemporary world has an ever-increasing need for an international legal system that can respond to
the demands of our time. Of the many reasons for this fact, we will survey only a few of the most salient. First and foremost is the
increasing interdependence of all peoples. Even as the world is riven with many contradictions and conflicts, it is also becoming more
integrated with a greater need for orderly, predictable conduct. Events, and especially natural and social disasters, even when they occur
within a single country, have more noticeable effects on conditions in the world at large. The Chernobyl accident, the earthquake in
Armenia, and even internal political processes underway in the territories of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe -- these and
many other events occurring within separate countries or regions have a global significance affecting the destiny of all peoples. The
intertwining of the economic life of diverse countries today is even greater than was the interdependence of different regions within the
same state only half a century ago. Order and predictability of the behavior of actors on the international scene can
be achieved first of all with the aid of social norms, among which international law occupies an important
place. A second reason for the growth of the role of international law is inextricably connected with the first. The threats of a
thermonuclear catastrophe, universal ecological crisis, and acute economic problems in developing countries
are of global concern and endanger the very existence of humanity. Resolution of these problems demands
coordinated efforts of all states and peoples, which would be impossible to achieve without the aid
of international norms, procedures, and institutions. A third reason is the breathtaking political transformations of recent
years. The changes that began in 1985 in the former Soviet Union and were unleashed in Eastern Europe have radically transformed the
map of the world. Although it is impossible to give a final evaluation of the character and significance of these changes at the present time,
it is possible to conclude that the fundamental global contradiction of the Cold War era -- the contradiction between socialism and
capitalism, which to a great extent determined not only the general climate in the world but also the role and significance
of international law in it -- has been overcome. In the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, 32 countries of Europe, together with
the United States and Canada, affirmed that "the era of confrontation and division of Europe has ended." 1 The end has come not only for
division in Europe, but also in the world at large. But this fact can hardly lead automatically to a non-contradictory,
stable world order. The acuteness of conflicts that are not con- nected with the so-called "fundamental
contradiction of the epoch" can even intensify, as the unleashing of savage interethnic conflict in the former
Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union amply demonstrates. Nonetheless, it is precisely the cooperation
between former ideological and political adversaries that can serve as the prerequisite and condition for the
resolution of many problems and conflicts. A vivid example may be found in the reaction of world society to the aggression of
Iraq against Kuwait and the reining in of the aggressor with the aid of U.N. mechanisms in accordance with the U.N. Charter and other
norms of international law.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Solvency**
243
244
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Agent – Congress
Congressional Action is key to removing the embargo and normalizing relations.*
Zimmerman, 2009 Student Fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and
Congress, 10
(Chelsea A., 2010, Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress (CSPC),
“Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An Opportune Time To Mend a Broken
Policy,”
http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf,
pg. 9-10, 6/23/13, ND)
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¶ Administrative changes
would be based on the language in the Helms-Burton Act relating to support of private enterprise in Cuba.¶ 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.¶
*This card could also be retagged/highlighted in order to talk about how slow reform (i.e. not total rejection of
embargo) is key for a version of the aff that isn’t total rejection.
Congress Key to Lift Embargo
National Security Program, Think Tank, 2010
(9/16, Third Way, “Third Way Memo – End the Embargo of Cuba”,
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo__End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, 6/30/13, MK)
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
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
245
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. Opponents to lifting the embargo have raised a number of objections.
None of ¶ them withstand scrutiny. ¶ Peter Brookes, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense under
George W. ¶ Bush, said that lifting the embargo could lead to Cuba becoming a regional power, ¶ arguing
that the US “[doesn’t] need a pumped-up Cuba that could become a serious ¶ menace to US interests in
Latin America, the Caribbean—or beyond.”14 While ¶ Venezuela, for example, has challenged the US on
some interests, its anti-American ¶ leadership has not been able to present a serious counterweight to
the US or have a ¶ significant impact on US security. Given that Venezuela is a much bigger economic ¶
player than Cuba due to its oil revenues, it is highly unlikely that Cuba would pose a ¶ significant
geopolitical challenge to the US, even if significant sums of money enter ¶ Cuba’s economy.¶ Former
Senator Mel Martinez has argued against lifting the embargo, claiming that ¶ the US needs “to support
pro-democracy activists in Cuba, not provide the Castro ¶ regime with a resource windfall.”15 Florida
Rep. Tom Rooney has argued that lifting the ¶ embargo would serve to reward Cuba’s leadership for its
decades-long record of ¶ human rights abuses and allow the abuse to continue due to the absence of
pressure ¶ from the US.16 The US has used the embargo as an effort to pressure the communist ¶
leadership for nearly fifty years, yet the status quo remains unchanged. If a possible ¶ downside of lifting
the embargo is that the situation will not change, then the US has ¶ nothing to lose by making an effort
to normalize relations with Cuba. By refusing to ¶ engage Cuba and make efforts to move Cuba forward,
the US is in a weak position to ¶ criticize the Cuban leadership. Lifting the embargo and normalizing
relations would put the US in a stronger position to bring about change through economic
advancements that could in turn result in domestic demands within Cuba for greater social and
political freedoms. After five decades of failure, the arguments for lifting the embargo are far more ¶
compelling than those in support of leaving the status quo unchanged. The US should leave ¶ the Cold
War-era policy in the past and look to engage Cuba through open trade and formal ¶ diplomatic
relations, which could initiate the transition to a more open, cooperative, and ¶ potentially democratic
Cuba that policymakers have sought for half a century.
246
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Agent – President
The plan solves- the president could lift the embargo.
Mowry, attorney for 2 major law firms, 1999
David, 1999, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, “Lifting the Embargo Against Cuba
Using Vietnam as a Model: A Policy Paper for Modernity” Volume 29 EJH]
The embargo against Cuba is based on four major statutes, and several steps are required before the
President can lift the embargo. n192 The sanctions against Cuba under the TWEA are imposed directly
by the President; thus the President could lift any sanctions governed by the TWEA unilaterally. n193
The other [*257] statutes, however, could require action by both the President and the Congress. n194¶
To begin, the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) does not appear to prohibit a President to unilaterally lift
the embargo. The FAA of 1961 was enacted by Congress and gave the President specific authority to
impose a trade embargo against Cuba, and like the TWEA, it follows that the President could
unilaterally lift any measures under the FAA. n195 However, the legislation, when examined closely,
shows that the Congress intended for the United States to deny assistance to any countries which
remained under Communist rule. n196 This would seem to indicate that the President would, at least,
have to make a report to Congress demonstrating that Cuba had taken measures to hold elections with
opportunity for participation by other political parties.¶ The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 (CDA) was
enacted by Congress to promote a "peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba." n197 The CDA covers
"limitations on trade with countries that: (i) receive assistance from the former Soviet Union (such as
Cuba); and (ii) trade with Cuba (in the form of foreign subsidiaries)." n198 There is a "two-track" policy
underlying it. n199 One track consists of the sanctions against Cuba. The other track, reminiscent of
Bush's Vietnam "road-map," is the U.S. resolve to assist Cuba if it decides to take on a democratic form
of government. n200 There are sections of the CDA that require the President to report to Congress that
Cuba has met the conditions of the Act. n201 The Congress would need to receive notice of the
President's intentions to lift the sanctions under it. n202 However, there is no provision in the CDA that
Congress could countermand the President if there was a disagreement. n203 [*258] ¶ Finally, the most
punitive measure regarding the Cuban embargo is LIBERTAD. n204 LIBERTAD is based on punitive
measures against foreign investors who "traffic" in expropriated property located in Cuba. n205 The
measures include the exclusion from the United States of foreign investors who "participate in the
trafficking." n206 The trafficking is defined as the purchase of property from Cuba that Castro has
confiscated in the past thirty-eight years. n207 To countermand the measures set forth in LIBERTAD, the
President would need to determine that Cuba has a transition government in place, and then report to
the Congress on his determination before the Act could be repealed. n208 Following a determination
by the President that all statutory requirements have been met, an executive order could be issued
instructing all the executive departments and agencies currently enforcing the embargo to begin
termination measures. n209¶ The obstacles that prevent a President from lifting the embargo against
Cuba arbitrarily would appear to be no more than a facade of legislation. n210 If the President
determines that it is prudent for the United States to once again open trade relations with Cuba, then
the President may, after the appropriate reports to Congress, lift the embargo. n211 Of course the
American Congress has the power to override a Presidential decree by a two-thirds majority, and it
seems that no President would take such a politically volatile step without extensive consultation with,
and acquiescence of, Congressional leadership. n212 Given the normalization of relations with the
Communist leadership of Vietnam, America's reasons for imposing the embargo against Cuba can no
longer be said to hinge on the Communist ideology of Cuba's leadership. Rather, [*259] the final issue
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
247
yet to be resolved, or discussed by the United States and Cuba, surrounds the property claims resulting
from the expropriation of property during the Castro revolution.
Presidential action avoids Congress, solves trade, and spreads Western ideals
Goodman, reporter for Bloomberg News, 13
(Joshua, 2/20/13, Bloomberg, “Obama Can Bend Cuba Embargo to Help Open
Economy, Groups Say,” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/obama-shouldbend-cuba-embargo-to-buoy-free-markets-reports-say.html, accessed 6/23/13, IC)
President Barack Obama
should break free of the embargo on Cuba and assert his authority to promote a freemarket overhaul taking place on the communist island.¶ The recommendation is contained in concurrent reports to
be published today by the Cuba Study Group and the Council of the Americas, two groups seeking to end a decades-old
deadlock on U.S. policy toward Cuba.¶ Among steps Obama can take without violating sanctions passed by Congress
are opening U.S. markets, as well as authorizing the sale of American goods and services, to the
estimated 400,000 private entrepreneurs that have arisen since Cuban President Raul Castro started cutting
state payrolls in 2011. The reports also recommend allowing U.S. credit card and insurance companies to provide basic financial
services to licensed U.S. travelers to Cuba.¶ “We’ve been sitting on the sidelines with our hands tied by an antiquated law that’s being too
strictly interpreted,” said Chris
Sabatini, an author of the report and senior policy director for the Council of the Americas, a
more Obama can do to be a catalyst for meaningful economic
business-backed group based in New York. “There’s
change.Ӧ Obama in 2009 allowed companies for the first time to provide communications services to the Caribbean island of 11 million and
lifted a travel ban for Cuban-Americans. The loosening of restrictions, while heralded by the White House as a way to undermine the Castro
government’s control of information, was seen as insufficient by potential investors including Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc.¶
Economic Overhaul¶ Now, in
a second term, and with private business expanding in Cuba, Obama has a freer
hand to do more, said Sabatini. An exception to the embargo allowing U.S. businesses and consumers to
trade with non-state enterprises in Cuba would be small in scale though help empower a growing, viable
constituency for change on the island, he said.¶ Since his brother Fidel started handing over power in 2006, Castro has
relaxed state control of the economy in the biggest economic overhaul since the 1959 revolution. To
provide jobs for the 1 million state workers being laid off, the government began allowing the buying
and selling of homes and the creation of farming co-operatives and other private businesses.¶
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
248
Solvency—Now is Key
Only the plan solves for travel restrictions and removing Cuba from the list of state
sponsors of terrorism. Now is key.
Haass, president of council on foreign relation; former director of policy planning for
the Department of State, 09
(Richard N., 3/6/09, Newsweek Magazine, “Forget about Fidel,”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/06/forget-about-fidel.html,
6/23/13, ND)
Fifty years of animosity cannot be set aside in a stroke, but now
is the time for Washington to act. Much of the initiative lies with
the new president. President Obama, could, for example, make good on campaign promises to allow Cuban-Americans to
freely remit funds to relatives in Cuba and to visit them regularly, and could loosen travel restrictions for
others as well. (Some of these measures can be found in legislation currently working its way through Congress.) Obama could
also initiate technical contacts. Each country already maintains an "interests section," a small embassy by another name, in
the other's capital. They also share information about weather. But they could resume exchanges on such common
challenges as migration and drug interdiction, and initiate them on homeland security and counterterrorism.¶ Going
beyond this and dealing with the basics of the embargo—or removing Cuba from the list of state
sponsors of terrorism—would likely require congressional approval. Current law, though, makes it almost impossible
to take such steps. It requires that Cuba effectively become a functioning democracy before sanctions can be lifted. But it's
precisely engagement that is far more likely to reform Cuba. Preconditions are an obstacle to effective foreign policy.
The Embargo stands in the way of economic and moral progress. Removing the
embargo now is the only way to solve.
Hanson, economic researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, 1-16
(Daniel, 1-16-13, Forbes, “It’s Time for the U.S. to End It’s Senseless Embargo of Cuba,”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-itssenseless-embargo-of-cuba/, 6/23/13, ND)
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.
Removing Sanctions now allows free flow of information which will create change for
the better in Cuba.
Huddleston, former co-director of the Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Toward a Cuba
in Transition, 08
249
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
(Vicki, 3-10-08, Brookings, “Cuba Embargo’s Usefulness has Run it’s Course,”
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2008/03/10-cuba-huddleston,
6/23/13, ND)
There can no longer be any doubt that our
isolation of Cuba did not and cannot bring about the end of the
revolution. What will bring about the revolution's demise are old age, illness and death. More important, the revolution will
evolve as it loses its founding fathers and becomes increasingly less isolated from its neighbors though
the Internet, television, travelers and the flow of information. But how fast and how far the revolution evolves depends
upon U.S. policy. If we remove the barriers to communication, we will speed the forces of change. Just
as was the case in Eastern Europe as a result of the Helsinki agreements, the Cuban people will be
empowered by human contact, the free flow of information, and the support and encouragement of
Americans and Cuban Americans from Florida to California. If U.S. policy can deal with Cuba -- not as a domestic
political issue -- but as one sovereign state to another, then we will resume official diplomatic relations with the exchange of
ambassadors and begin -- once again -- to talk about matters that affect the well being and security of both our
countries, namely migration, anti-narcotics, health and the environment. Starting a dialogue will allow us to press
Cuba's leaders to respect the principles that we and the region hold dear: human rights, rule of law and freedom. Removing the
barriers to communications and to normal diplomatic relations are not concessions as some would claim. Rather, they are
practical initiatives that will reduce the dependence of the Cuban people on the Cuban state by
providing them with alternative sources of information and resources to improve their daily lives. More
critically, a policy based on helping the Cuban people succeed would enable them to build civil society and begin a
process of growing democracy from the bottom up. But the Bush administration is standing by its policy that Cuba must
change first, tying any modification in our unilateral embargo to the end of the Castro regime. This does us and the Cuban people a disservice
because it ties our policy to that of Raúl Castro's. By waiting for the Cuban regime to act, we make policy initiatives that would bring about
change, dependent on the actions of the Cuban government. The
longer we wait the more likely that Cuba's new
leaders will manage without us. In three to five years, Cuba, with help from foreign investors, will have exploited deep-sea oil and
its sugar cane ethanol, adding billions to its annual revenues and making the island a net exporter of energy. Worse, the longer we
wait, the slower the process of change. If we want to play a role in Cuba's future, we must act now to encourage
change in Cuba, by the Cuban people.¶
It’s Time To End the Cuban Embargo-It’s Hurting the Economy
Hanson et Al economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute
13
(Daniel, Dayne Batten affiliated with the University of north Carolina Departent of
Public Policy, Harrison Ealey a financial analyst, 1/16/13, Forbes, “It’s Time for the US
To End Its Senseless Embargo of Cuba”,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-itssenseless-embargo-of-cuba/, 6.24.13, AL)
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 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
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
250
income and employment for Americans in states like Florida, where the unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent.¶ The
cost of the
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.
embargo to
The Time is Now - Other Countries Benefitting From Trade
Zimmerman, Barnard College, 10
(Chelsea, 4.10.10, ThePresidency.org, “Rethinking The Cuban Trade Embargo: An
Opportune Time To Mend a Broken Policy”,
http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf,
6.24.13, AL)
Meanwhile, other
countries are filling the vacuum created by the U.S. trade ¶ embargo on Cuba. China more
its trade with Cuba in 2006 to $1.8 ¶ billion. Venezuela exports to Cuba increased from $2
billion in 2005 to $2.6 billion ¶ in 2006. China and Venezuela currently represent 35% of Cuba’s total trade ¶ (Reuters, February 26, 2007).
than doubled
Cuba recently entered into an agreement with China ¶ for the sale of 4500 pickup trucks, and has developed a cooperative relationship ¶ with
China in developing its energy resources. Furthermore, Brazil, Turkey, ¶ Canada, Mexico, South Africa, Spain and Vietnam have in recent years
solidified ¶ their trade relationships with Cuba. In late 2008, the European Union signed an ¶ agreement to renew its ties with Cuba after having
formally lifted its diplomatic ¶ sanctions against Cuba. ¶ Lifting
the trading ban with Cuba could directly benefit the
U.S. by ¶ providing an additional supplier of oil, gas and ethanol only ninety miles from its ¶ coast. Cubapetroleo, the
state oil company, claims that Cuba has 20 billion barrels ¶ of recoverable oil in its offshore waters (Reuters, October
16, 2008). If efforts to ¶ develop more offshore wells proceed as planned, Cuba could produce as much as ¶ 525,000
barrels per day of oil, most of which could be exported to the United States ¶ if the trade embargo was lifted
(Reuters, June 12, 2008).
Lifting The Embargo Must Happen Soon
Arzeno M.B.A., University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida 3
(Mario, 6.6.3, MMAS, “The U.S. Embargo on Cuba: A Time for Change”,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA416135 6.24.13, AL)
Although the
embargo has not achieved the primary objective of removing Fidel¶ Castro from power, its secondary effects have been
so effective that Castro’s ability to threaten the United States is gone. Castro has been and will remain unable
to influence radical movements throughout the world (Schwab 1999, 183). The Soviet Union has collapsed
proving that globalization and capitalism is the dominant force of the 21st century. Cuba is an impoverished
nation hanging on to survival and stability by Castro’s sheer determination and ability to maintain power. Castro’s time in power is short and
Cuba without Castro
is extremely vulnerable to becoming a rogue state with the elements of transnational threats at Cuba’s
doorstep once he is gone. The Cuban American National Foundation grows weaker everyday and American public opinion that
believes change must happen grows stronger everyday. The time for change in Cuba is now. Fidel Castro’s presence in
Cuba should be inconsequential to that change. A gradual lifting of the embargo should begin today with the United
States committed to engaging Cuba in order to prevent Cuba from becoming a threat to the United
States in the future.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
251
Solvency—Laundry List
Lifting the embargo solves US and Cuban economy, US relations with Latin America,
and global US perception
Hanson et al., economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, 13
(Daniel, & Batten, Dayne, affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department
of Public Policy, & Ealey, Harrison, financial analyst. 1/16/13, Forbes “It’s Time For The
U.S. To End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba,”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-itssenseless-embargo-of-cuba/, accessed 6/23/13. IC)
While the
embargo has been through several legal iterations in the intervening years, the general tenor of the U.S. position toward Cuba is a hardline not-inmy-backyard approach to communism a la the Monroe Doctrine. The official position is outdated, hypocritical, and
counterproductive.¶ The Cuban embargo was inaugurated by a Kennedy administration executive order in 1960 as a response to the confiscation of
American property in Cuba under the newly installed Castro regime. The current incarnation of the embargo – codified primarily in the Helms-Burton
Act – aims at producing free markets and representative democracy in Cuba through economic sanctions, travel
restrictions, and international legal penalties.¶ Since Fidel Castro abdicated power to his brother Raul in 2008, the
government has undertaken more than 300 economic reforms designed to encourage enterprise, and
restrictions have been lifted on property use, travel, farming, municipal governance, electronics access, and more. Cuba is still a place of
oppression and gross human rights abuse, but recent events would indicate the 11 million person nation is moving in the right direction.¶ 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 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. ¶ 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.¶ Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct business in Cuba unimpeded, the
sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For
American multinational corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges.¶ 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. ¶ What’s worse,
U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less friendly to America n
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
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
252
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 Gains Security, Energy Independence, and Leadership
Gerz-Escandon, Independent scholar & former professor of political science based in
Atlanta, 8
(Jennifer, 10/8/08, MC Monitor, “End the US-Cuba embargo: It’s a win-win”,
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1009/p09s02-coop.html,
6/24/13, AL)
For its part, by
ending the embargo, the US simultaneously gains security through stability in Cuba. More
important, by investing in the future prototype for emerging markets – a 42,803-square-mile green energy and technology
lab called Cuba – America gains a dedicated partner in the search for energy independence . Supporters of the embargo
say it serves as an important symbolic protest of Cuba's deplorable human rights record and its lack of
political, civil, and economic freedoms. Yet constructive engagement with the reform-ready regime of Mr. Castro – utilizing a framework
based on mutual economic interests similar to US-China relations – could give observers more cause for optimism.Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's willingness to
speak openly with Newsweek/CNN journalist Fareed Zakaria last month about democratization is evidence of progress.While phasing out the Cuban embargo won't
render a quick solution to fractured US-Cuba relations or end the evaporation of esteem the US is suffering throughout Latin America, it
would mark a
significant achievement of hemispheric leadership on a divisive issue. By ending the embargo, the US may learn
that under the right circumstances, the soft power of diplomacy proves more effective in reshaping America's
perception in Latin America than the hard power of economic isolation ever did.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
253
Solvency—Timeframe
Window of opportunity – now is key to the plan
Pomerantz PhD, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy 1/1
(Phyllis, 1/1/13, The Globe and Mail, “Now’s the time to lift the U.S. embargo on Cuba,”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/nows-the-time-to-lift-the-us-embargo-oncuba/article6790494/?service=print , 6/23/13. RJ)
Now that the election is over, the United States has a rare opportunity to do away with one of its most pointless and ineffective foreign
policies – the embargo of Cuba – that is as obsolete as the “cool” 1950s and 1960s sedans still running on the streets of Havana. ¶ Just a few weeks ago, U.S.
President Barack Obama sat down with leaders in Myanmar, an international pariah for many years with a military responsible for thousands of civilian deaths.
The United States now trades actively with Vietnam, which remains under the control of the same Communist
Party against whom it once fought – and lost – a terrible war. The U.S. has a normal, albeit complex, diplomatic and commercial relationship with China, another
Communist country.¶ 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
254
Solvency—Agriculture
The status quo limits opportunity for agricultural production- plan uniquely key to
solve
Carrasco, Professor of law @ University of Iowa, ‘02
(Enrique R., University of Iowa, Spring 2004, “Transnational & Contemporary
Problems”,
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/tlcp14&div=7&collection=jour
nals&set_as_cursor=2&men_tab=srchresults&terms=7%20Drake%20J.%20Agric.%20L.
%20455&type=matchall#2, 6/23/13, PD)
However, another segment of our society, including human rights advocates such as Human Rights
Watch, believes the U.S. sanctions have failed to promote democracy and respect for human rights in
Cuba and have instead increased the misery of a great many Cubans. Citing Canada and the European
Union, they argue that an approach of constructive economic engagement will ultimately lead to
change for the better in Cuba. This approach has bipartisan support in Congress, as evidenced by the
formation of pro-engagement, bipartisan Cuba Working Groups in both the House and Senate. In the
state of Iowa, Senator Harkin and four of the five Representatives favor engagement. The latest
manifestation of the confrontation between pro-embargo and engagement constituencies occurred in
Congress last year. Facing the threat of veto from the White House, in October eighteen Republican
senators, largely from Midwestern states, joined forty-nine Democrats to pass an amendment to the
2004 Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Bill, identical to an amendment that passed in the House
previously by a bipartisan vote of 227 to 188, that would have lifted the restrictions on travel to Cuba.46
However, to the dismay of engagement constituencies, the amendment was controversially stripped out
of the legislation even before the conference committee formally met. One might ask, what do travel
restrictions have to do with trade between Cuba and U.S. Midwestern states? According to one study,
lifting the travel restrictions would produce between $126 million and $252 million in annual U.S.
agricultural exports to Cuba above the current sales, creating between 3490 and 6980 jobs for
Americans.48 And if the embargo were lifted completely, some say sales of U.S. agricultural goods
could exceed a billion dollars annually and annual related economic output would exceed $3.6
billion.49 Much of this output would come from U.S. Midwestern states, particularly Iowa (more than
$70 million), Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Missouri.80 Over 30,000 jobs would be created, with a
good portion of the job creation occurring here in Iowa (nearly 2000).51 Lifting the embargo would
not only boost trade, but, as I have mentioned, it would also allow U.S. foreign investment in Cuba.62
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Solvency—Neoliberalism Good
255
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
256
Solvency—International Consensus
Short timeframe, wide international support.
Mowry, attorney for 2 major law firms, 1999
David, 1999, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, “Lifting the Embargo Against Cuba
Using Vietnam as a Model: A Policy Paper for Modernity” Volume 29 EJH]
In 1996, the United Nations voted 137-3 for a resolution calling for an end to the Cuban embargo by
the United States. n144 Such a strong vote signified that the thirty-year embargo has not carried favor
with the rest of the world. The advent of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996
(LIBERTAD) has not helped matters. n145 The attempt by the United States to proclaim through
legislation that foreign investment in Cuba will have negative repercussions clearly represents a
minority voice in the world today. n146 As one scholar notes, "the United States is the only major
country that is not involved in the expansion of foreign investment in Cuba." n147¶ Currently, the
question seems not to be whether the United States should lift the embargo against Cuba, but rather
when and how the embargo will be lifted. The proposition may not be a simple one given that the
United States has invested over three decades in a hard-line "full restitution or nothing" stance with
Cuba. n148 However, the difficulties involved in the [*250] lifting of the embargo should in no way deter
the United States and Cuba from negotiating a BIT that would be profitable and comfortable for both
nations.¶ Lifting the embargo as it stands today, with a multitude of statutes and regulations concerning
its continuation and/or lifting, may not be as simple an issue as the lifting of the embargo against
Vietnam. But an exploration of the practical steps necessary to lifting it reveals that the embargo
against Cuba, if not the political repercussions, could be eliminated within one year after both
countries begin to move toward issue settlement. This final section will examine the steps used by
Vietnam and the United States to bring an end to the tensions between their governments, and how
some of those same steps should be taken by the United States and Cuba.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Answers To**
257
258
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Politics**
259
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Politics – Link Turn
The embargo kills the Cuban economy, hurts the people and there is widespread
American support to revoke it.
Trani, University Distinguished Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, 2013
[Eugene, 6-23-2013, Timesdispatch.com, “End the Embargo on Cuba,”
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnists-blogs/guestcolumnists/end-the-embargo-on-cuba/article_ba3e522f-8861-5f3c-bee9000dffff8ce7.html EJH]
At the same time, there are many significant problems that tend to hurt the Cuban people most at risk
in economic terms. The visit of a cruise ship to a Cuban port results in that ship being unable, no
matter which flag registry the ship has, to dock in the United States for six months. This policy really
hurts the Cuban tourist economy, which could greatly improve employment and job creation across
Cuba.¶ If Cuban materials are used in the construction of cars (more than 4% nickel for example), these
cars cannot be sold in the United States, a policy which works against the rise of an automobile-based
manufacturing segment of the Cuban economy.¶ The American embargo has had, therefore, very
significant impact on different parts of the economy in Cuba. In fact, such varied political leaders as
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; George P. Shultz, former Republican secretary of state; and the late
former Democratic presidential candidate, George McGovern, have called for the embargo to be lifted
and relations to be renewed between Cuba and the United States. Even polls of Americans show a
majority in favor of an end to the embargo and re-establishing of normal relations between the
countries.
Lifting the embargo is really popular- even the government opposes keeping it
Chamber of Commerce, No date
(No Date, “Oppose Unilateral Economic Sanctions,” Online:
http://www.uschamber.com/international/agenda/oppose-unilateral-economic-sanctions FG)
During the past few decades, Congress and the executive branch have repeatedly imposed unilateral
economic sanctions on a variety of countries in the pursuit of foreign policy goals. With so few
positive results—and so many unintended consequences—it’s time for a fresh look at U.S. sanctions
policy. Unilateral sanctions cover a range of policy tools from import bans and embargoes to restrictions
on U.S. investment and expatriate activity overseas. All too often, unilateral sanctions have been
imposed for ill-defined purposes or with little consideration of their real impact. Rather than altering
the behavior of foreign governments, these sanctions have often damaged U.S. economic interests at
home and overseas. Consistently, U.S. unilateral economic sanctions create a vacuum that is quickly
filled by companies from Asia, Europe, or elsewhere in the Americas. Over the past 30 years, some
sanctions legislation has imposed restrictions on commercial activity in an extraterritorial fashion that
incites economic, diplomatic, and legal conflicts with our allies. In the past, U.S. laws imposing
restrictions on the activities of European subsidiaries of U.S. multinationals have met with intense
resistance from European governments. While the United States eventually lifted the restrictions, the
damage to its foreign policy goals had been done. Not only do such moves undermine efforts to build a
consensus for multilateral action, they make the United States more vulnerable to international
commercial complaints. They can also damage U.S. leadership by greatly expanding the universe of
entities subject to countersanctions to include insurers, creditors, and foreign subsidiaries. There is no
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
260
better example of the ineffectiveness of U.S. unilateral sanctions than Washington’s policy toward
Cuba. Implemented in October 1960 to pressure Fidel Castro to democratize, the Cuban embargo
made a martyr out of a tyrant and actually has helped prop up the current regime. No one seriously
argues that the Cuban dictatorship could have withstood five decades of free trade, free markets, and
free enterprise, powered by its own entrepreneurial citizens. While the current isolation of Cuba has
far outlasted its original purpose, U.S. policies impose real costs. For American businesses, the U.S.
International Trade Commission estimated in 2001 that the Cuba embargo cost U.S. exporters up to
$1.2 billion annually in lost sales. A March 2010 study by Texas A&M University indicates that easing
restrictions on agricultural exports and lifting the travel ban as proposed in recent bills could result in
up to $365 million in additional sales of U.S. goods and create 6,000 new jobs in the United States. A
comprehensive review of U.S. unilateral economic sanctions is overdue. From the five-decade old
embargo on Cuba to proposals for extraterritorial sanctions on other countries, unilateral sanctions
bring a host of unintended and unhelpful consequences . Chamber Recommendations: The United
States should eschew the use of unilateral economic sanctions, which have proven to be ineffective in
advancing U.S. foreign policy goals.A good place to begin would be to lift the embargo on Cuba,
starting by easing restrictions on agricultural exports and lifting the travel ban. Even more pernicious are
sanctions with extraterritorial reach, which undermine multilateral approaches to global security
challenges and open the United States to countersanctions.
It will be easy to generate bipartisan support for lifting the embargo- if could generate
a lot of money for the American economy and bring democracy to Cuba
Cuba Policy Foundation, 2002
(1/28/2002, A nonpartisan group dedicated to getting the embargo lifted, “America’s
Farmers Bearing Heavy Burden for US Embargo Against Cuba: New Report,” Online:
http://www.cubafoundation.org/pdf/CPF-Release-AgStudy-0202.28.htm FG)
Monday, January 28, 2002, Washington – The U.S. economy is losing up to $1.24 billion annually in
agricultural exports because of the embargo against Cuba – and up to $3.6 billion more annually in
related economic output. That’s the finding of a new report by two of America’s top agricultural
economists, released today by the Cuba Policy Foundation, the Washington-based organization led by
senior diplomats in Republican Administrations. "If the embargo were lifted, the average American
farmer would feel a difference in his or her life within two to three years," says the report’s co-author,
C. Parr Rosson, professor of agricultural economics at Texas A&M University. The report, "Economic
Impacts of U.S. Agricultural Exports to Cuba," was written by professor Rosson and his colleague at
Texas A&M, Flynn Adcock. Based on the report, two former U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture, the Reagan
Administration’s John Block and the Clinton Administration’s Dan Glickman, today wrote to President
Bush: "Current U.S. policy has not given relief to the Cuban people. And now it's just as clear: Our
policy is also harming American farmers during these tough economic times. Mr. President, the
sooner we lift this failed embargo, the better." Today’s report ranks all U.S. states from 1 to 50 in terms
of the potential impact of the embargo on their respective agricultural sectors. The subcategories
include annual potential agricultural exports, and additional potential economic output stemming from
the new agricultural exports. An overview chart of the top 20 states, with dollar estimates in both
categories, is included in this press release. Charts of all 50 states in a whole range of categories –
including by commodity – is in the report itself. The top 20 states are, in order: #1 Arkansas, #2
California, #3 Iowa, #4 Louisiana, #5 Texas, #6 Illinois, #7 Mississippi, #8 Minnesota, #9 Nebraska, #10
Missouri, #11 Kansas, #12 North Dakota, #13 North Carolina, #14 Washington State, #15 Indiana, #16
Georgia, #17 Florida, #18 South Dakota, #19 Ohio and #20 Alabama. "With the numbers in today’s
report," said Ambassador Sally Grooms Cowal, president of the Cuba Policy Foundation, "I challenge
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
261
the pro-embargo lobby to tell farmers that it’s right to make them bear the economic burden of a
policy that has failed for 40 years. That argument won’t pass moral muster, and now it won’t pass
political muster either – not when the farmers hurt most by the embargo are in states like California,
Texas, Illinois and, of course, Iowa. "Today’s report will accelerate the momentum on Capitol Hill,
which is already significant, for changing U.S. policies toward Cuba," Ambassador Cowal said. "These
numbers are an economic and political double-whammy of a kind that the pro-embargo lobby has
never faced before." The Cuba Policy Foundation, founded in early 2001, is a nonpartisan, decidedly
centrist organization led by senior diplomats in Republican Administrations. The Cuba Policy Foundation
believes changing U.S. policies toward Cuba would be in America’s national and economic interests,
and would bring democratic reform to Cuba at last. The president of the Cuba Policy Foundation,
Ambassador Sally Grooms Cowal, spent 23 years in the U.S. Foreign Service working for a series of proembargo Republican presidents, beginning with President Nixon. She rose to become Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Latin America under first President Bush, who later appointed her Ambassador to
Trinidad and Tobago. The chairman of the board of the Cuba Policy Foundation is William D. Rogers,
Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America and Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs under
President Ford.
Lifting the embargo has bipartisan support- A majority of Democrats, Republicans, and
independents support lifting it
Canseco, VP at Angus Reid Public Opinion, 2012
(Mario, 2/6/2006, “Most Americans Willing to Re-establish Ties with Cuba,” Online:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/44366/most-americans-willing-to-re-establish-ties-with-cuba/ FG)
Most Americans Willing to Re-establish Ties with Cuba. A majority of respondents also wants to lift the
travel ban that prevents most Americans from visiting Cuba. People in the United States are ready to
change their country’s interaction with Cuba, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found. In the
online survey of a representative national sample of 1,008 American adults, three-in-five respondents
(62%) agree with the U.S. re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, while one-in-four (23%)
disagree. Majorities of Independents (67%), Democrats (64%) and Republicans (56%) agree with reinstituting to bilateral ties. In March 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama eased travel restrictions to
Cuba, and allowed U.S. citizens to travel to the island for religious and cultural reasons. Most Americans
(57%) believe it is time to lift the travel ban that prevents most Americans from visiting the island. Half
of Americans (51%) would lift the trade embargo with Cuba that has been in place since the 1960s,
while three-in-ten (29%) disagree. Most Democrats (53%) and Independents (55%) support ending the
embargo, but Republicans are not as convinced (46%). The notion of supporting non-governmental
groups in Cuba in order to foster protests against the current regime did not resonate with Americans.
Across the country, only 35 per cent of respondents endorse this course of action. Two-thirds of
Hispanics (67%) support re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, and their views on the travel
ban and the trade embargo mirror those of the entire sample of Americans.
262
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Link Turn—Plan Popular
Plan popular – change in political atmosphere means Obama won’t lose PC
AP 6/21
(Associated Press, WDEF News, “Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles,”
http://www.wdef.com/news/world/story/Cuba-US-try-talking-but-face-manyobstacles/NF6nxerKV0SVtDgeVp-G0A.cspx, 6/23. RJ)
HAVANA (AP) — They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in
recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over
the horizon.¶ Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But
there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits.¶ In the past week, the two countries have held talks on
resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban
intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it
would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. Castro
has also ushered in a series of
economic and social changes, including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island.¶ Under the radar, diplomats on
both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings.¶ Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy
footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. Today, U.S.
diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers.¶ Josefina
Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently traveled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials — a visit
that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more than two years.
Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president.¶
"These recent steps indicate a desire on both sides to try to move forward, but also a recognition on
both sides of just how difficult it is to make real progress," said Robert Pastor, a professor of international relations at
American University and former national security adviser on Latin America during the Carter administration. "These are tiny, incremental gains,
and the prospects of going backwards are equally high."¶ Among the things that have changed, John Kerry has taken over as U.S. secretary of
state after being an outspoken critic of Washington's policy on Cuba while in the Senate. President Barack Obama no longer has re-election
concerns while dealing with the Cuban-American electorate in Florida, where there
are also indications of a warming attitude
to negotiating with Cuba.¶ Cuban President Raul Castro, meanwhile, is striving to overhaul the island's Marxist economy with a dose of
limited free-market capitalism and may feel a need for more open relations with the U.S. While direct American investment is still barred on the
island, a rise in visits and money transfers by Cuban-Americans since Obama relaxed restrictions has been a boon for Cuba's cash-starved
economy. Under the table, Cuban-Americans are also helping relatives on the island start private businesses and refurbish homes bought under
Castro's limited free-market reforms.¶ Several prominent Cuban dissidents have been allowed to travel recently due to Castro's changes. The
trips have been applauded by Washington, and also may have lessened Havana's worries about the threat posed by dissidents.¶ Likewise, a U.S.
federal judge's decision to allow Cuban spy Rene Gonzalez to return home was met with only muted criticism inside the United States, perhaps
emboldening U.S. diplomats to seek further openings with Cuba.¶ To be sure, there is still far more that separates the long-time antagonists
than unites them.¶ The State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that calls into question Havana's
commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama administration continues to demand democratic change on an island ruled for more
than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel.¶ For its part, Cuba continues to denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic embargo.¶
And then there is Gross, the 64-year-old Maryland native who was arrested in 2009 and is serving a 15-year jail sentence for bringing
communications equipment to the island illegally. His case has scuttled efforts at engagement in the past, and could do so again, U.S. officials
say privately. Cuba has indicated it wants to trade Gross for four Cuban agents serving long jail terms in the United States, something
Washington has said it won't consider.¶ Ted Henken, a professor of Latin American studies at Baruch College in New York who helped organize
a recent U.S. tour by Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez, said the Obama administration is too concerned with upsetting Cuban-American
politicians and has missed opportunities to engage with Cuba at a crucial time in its history.¶ "I think that a lot more would have to happen for
this to amount to momentum leading to any kind of major diplomatic breakthrough," he said. "Obama should be bolder and more audacious."¶
Even these limited moves have sparked fierce criticism by those long opposed to engagement. Cuban-American congressman Mario Diaz Balart,
a Florida Republican, called the recent overtures "disturbing."¶ "Rather than attempting to legitimize the Cuban people's oppressors, the
administration should demand that the regime stop harboring fugitives from U.S. justice, release all political prisoners and American
humanitarian aid worker Alan Gross, end the brutal, escalating repression against the Cuban people, and respect basic human rights," he said.¶
Another Cuban-American politician from Florida, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, scolded Obama for seeking "dialogue with the dictatorship."¶
Despite that rhetoric, many
experts think Obama would face less political fallout at home if he chose
engagement because younger Cuban-Americans seem more open to improved ties than those who fled
immediately after the 1959 revolution.¶ Of 10 Cuban-Americans interview by The Associated Press on Thursday at the popular Miami
restaurant Versailles, a de facto headquarters of the exile community, only two said they were opposed to the U.S. holding migration talks.
Several said they hoped for much more movement.¶ Jose Gonzalez, 55, a shipping industry supervisor who was born in Cuba and came to the
U.S. at age 12, said he now favors an end to the embargo and the resumption of formal diplomatic ties. "There was a reason that existed but it
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
263
doesn't anymore," he said.¶ Santiago Portal, a 65-year-old engineer who moved to the U.S. 45 years ago, said more dialogue would be good.
"The more exchange of all types the closer Cuba will be to democracy," he said.¶ Those opinions dovetail with a 2011 poll by Florida
International University of 648 randomly selected Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade County that said 58 percent favored re-establishing
diplomatic relations with Cuba. That was a considerable increase from a survey in 1993, when 80 percent of people polled said they did not
support trade or diplomatic relations with Cuba.¶ "In general, there
is an open attitude, certainly toward re-establishing
diplomatic relations," said Jorge Duany, director of the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University. "Short of perhaps
lifting the embargo ... there seems to be increasing support for some sort of understanding with the Cuban government."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
264
Link Turn—Plan Popular
Plan popular – empirics prove
Weinmann, Senior Fellow Director of the World Policy Institute, 04
(LissaWorld Policy Journals, “Washington’s Irrational Cuba Policy,” eLibrary, Accessed June 24, 2013, RJ)
Just as the Cuban-American community and Florida are changing, so is the U.S. Congress. Sentiment among lawmakers has
shifted dramatically in favor of easing the embargo on Cuba. The passage of the 2000 Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which lifted the ban on food sales to Cuba, was propelled chiefly by farmstate Republicans, one of the leaders being the former senator from Missouri, John Ashcroft. The new law encourages those who
doubted the embargo could be eased in an election year. Momentum has continued to build. Fifty-two members of the House
and twelve senators have formed bipartisan Cuba working groups, which function as caucuses to help rally action on Cuba.¶ While the Bush
administration has clamped down, Congress
has focused its efforts on opening travel to Cuba. Rep. Jeff Flake, an
Arizona Republican and former executive director of the Barry Goldwater Institute, has led the fight in the House: "At some point, we
need to concede that our current approach has failed and try something new.... If we are serious about
undermining Castro and bringing freedom and democracy to that island, why not let Americans travel there with that message?"3
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
265
Link Turn—Embargo Unpopular
Plan popular
Politics Daily 11
[Delia, Summer 2011, Politics Daily, “Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba
Embargo,”http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cubaembargo/ EJH]
It's unpopular. According to the travel-service provider Orbitz Worldwide, 67 percent of Americans
favor lifting the travel ban, and 72 percent believe that expanding travel to Cuba would positively
impact the lives of Cubans. Orbitz has collected more than 100,000 signatures in favor of restoring
travel to Cuba through its OpenCuba.org drive. And according to Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of the
leading proponents of lifting the embargo, if a vote in Congress were taken secretly, the ban on travel
and trade would most likely fall. In other words, the environment to lift sanctions may be ripe
politically in a way that it wasn't even six months ago.
Lifting the Embargo would help the Cuban people and take power from the regime.
Bandow, former assistant to President Reagan, 2012
[Doug, 12-11-2012, The CATO Institute, “Time to End the Cuba Embargo,”
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo EJH]
Lifting the embargo would be no panacea. Other countries invest in and trade with Cuba to no obvious
political impact. And the lack of widespread economic reform makes it easier for the regime rather than
the people to collect the benefits of trade, in contrast to China. Still, more U.S. contact would have an
impact. Argued trade specialist Dan Griswold, “American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans
who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then
find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmers markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors,
food venders, and other entrepreneurs.”¶ The Castro dictatorship ultimately will end up in history’s
dustbin. But it will continue to cause much human hardship along the way.¶ The Heritage Foundation’s
John Sweeney complained nearly two decades ago that “the United States must not abandon the
Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist regime.” But the dead
hand of half a century of failed policy is the worst breach of faith with the Cuban people.¶ Lifting
sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty. As
Griswold argued, “commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies
abroad.” Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood
of success than continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing
more contact with Americans likely would make
that day come sooner.
Cuban Embargo lowers Republican Capital
Sieff, Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting, 2009
[Martin, 4-9-9, UPI, Obama ready to end Cuba embargo, http://nbclatino.com/2012/11/09/surpriseobama-won-floridas-cuban-vote/, 6-25-12, GZ]
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
266
Raul Castro remains, like his brother, an unreconstructed communist revolutionary who regards the
United States as the source of all evil in the world. However, if the outreach program succeeds, it may
serve to dramatically reduce the Republican Party's already eroding historic lock on Cuban-American
support, especially in the crucial state of Florida, the fourth most populous state in the United States,
which is therefore of huge importance in the Electoral College.
Obama’s political capital on Cuba issue is increasing.
Hickson, writer for NBC, 2012
[Alessandra, 11/9/12, NBC, Surprise! Obama won Florida’s Cuban vote, http://nbclatino.com/2012/11/09/surprise-obama-won-floridas-cubanvote/, 6-25-12, GZ]
Thale believes that Republicans have finally been “proven wrong” and points out that voters just
elected Joe Garcia, the first Cuban-American Democrat from Florida, to Congress. Garcia was a member of the
Obama administration and defeated Republican incumbent Rep. David Rivera who was under federal investigation.¶ RELATED: Demographics
show why I-4 Corridor is no longer a swing area¶ With Obama’s victory with Cuban-Americans and immigration shifts making Puerto Ricans and
other non-Cuban Hispanics — who typically vote Democratic — the majority of the state’s registered Latino voters, Republicans may need to
change their tactics.¶ “It’s a huge challenge for them. They’re going to have to reach out to Puerto Ricans and rethink their constituency,” says
Thale.¶ As for what this lead among Cuban-Americans means for Obama’s second term in office, Thale says, “As
a foreign policy
matter, the Obama administration may have more flexibility and maneuverability on Cuba than they
thought.” Thale is careful to clarify that this doesn’t mean the embargo may be ending, but that, “Cuba as a foreign policy
question is no longer the third rail it once was.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
267
Link Turn – Ag Lobby
Farmers like the plan
Pulliam, Galesburg Journalist, 12
(John R., July 8, 2012, Galesburg.com, “Farmers want Cuban embargo lifted,”
http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1271220402/Farmers-want-Cuban-embargo-lifted#axzz2XjodCby5,
ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)
Grant Strom, who farms near Williamsfield, and David Serven, a St. Augustine-area farmer, were among
more than 20 Illinois Farm Bureau members and staff from across the state who traveled to Cuba on
June 28 through July 2 in an effort to promote the resumption of normal trading relations with the
country. Strom, who was impressed by the Cuban people, said U.S. farmers can sell their products to
the Caribbean nation, but there are a number of hurdles to jump to do so. For instance, the U.S.
government will not allow Cuba to buy agriculture products on credit. “If Cuba wants to buy a barge
load of wheat, they have to pay for it in cash,” he said. While products such as coffee, rum and cigars are
produced in Cuba and in demand in the U.S., “They can’t sell those things back to us,” Strom said. He
said those restrictions hurt farmers in the U.S., who cannot readily sell their crops to the potential
market, as well as the average Cuban, rather than government officials in the Communist country.
Food shortage “They’re on the brink of a food shortage in Cuba,” Strom said. Serven said each Cuban
has a food coupon book. “They can go to market and buy their needs at subsidized costs,” he said.
Serven said Cubans used to be able to use coupons to buy household goods, as well, but those are no
longer available. “Restoring normal trade relations with Cuba is an important step in furthering Illinois
farmers’ abilities to market their produce, including grains, meat and dairy products,” said Tamara
Nelsen, senior director of commodities for the Illinois Farm Bureau. “Agriculture has been a bright spot
in our nation’s — and our state’s — economy during the recent downturn. Improving our trade
relations with Cuba will only help to ensure agriculture can continue to strengthen our state and
national economies.”
Agriculture lobbies have political sway and have historically succeeded
Planas, Associate Editor for the Huffington Post, 12
(Roque, Feb 07, 2012, Fox News, “US Embargo on Cuba Turns 50,”
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/02/07/us-embargo-on-cuba-turns-50/, ACCESSED June 30,
2013, RJ)
In the end, it may be pressure groups rather than politicians who pave the way for an end to the halfcentury old trade sanctions. In the coming weeks, Cuba will begin exploring off-shore for oil—a
development Lopez Levy says is “potentially a game changer.” “Once the famers’ lobby was mobilized
in 1998, in just two years they made an important change to the embargo regulations,” Lopez Levy said,
referring to the Trade Sanctions Reform Act passed in Oct. 2000. “If they discover oil, a new business lobby will
emerge (in the United States) to challenge the embargo.”.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
268
Link Defense—Ryan unimportant
Ryan is Unimportant Now and has been Before – past legislation proves
Bendery, White House Correspondent for Huffington Post, ‘12
(Jennifer, 8/12/12, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/12/paul-ryanbills_n_1769816.html, accessed 6/29/13, ARH)
He's been in Congress for nearly 13 years, but Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has only seen two of his bills
pass into law during that time. Ryan, who Mitt Romney has tapped as his running mate, passed a bill
into law in July 2000 that renames a post office in his district. Thanks to Ryan, the post office on 1818
Milton Ave. in Janesville, Wis., is now known as "Les Aspin Post Office Building." The other time Ryan
saw one of his bills become law was in December 2008, with legislation to change the way arrows (as in
bows and arrows) are hit with an excise tax. Specifically, his bill amended the Internal Revenue Code to
impose a 39-cent tax per arrow shaft, instead of a 12.4 percent tax on the sales price. The bill also
"includes points suitable for use with arrows in the 11 percent excise tax on arrow parts and
accessories."
269
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Topicality**
We meet. Economic engagement is severely hindered by sanctions including the
embargo. The plan creates conditions for further economic engagement with
Cuba.
Lavin ’96 (Franklin, Autumn 1996, Washington Post, pg 140,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1148995?seq=3, pg 140, accessed 6-26-13, WP)
A substantial body of literature examines the effectiveness of economic sanctions as well as the subject of economic growth,
particularly foreign aid. On one side – call it an “oxygen” strategy – economic policy can reduce trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas and
adopt more active measures such as loans, credits, trade and investment missions, and foreign aid. On the other – call
it an
“asphyxiation” strategy – options include impeding exports to, or imports from, the targeted country
and restricting financial flows. More serious sanctions can include degrading trade by withdrawing mostfavored nation (MFN) or Generalized System of Preferences privileges, blocking International
Monetary Fund or World Bank projects, or imposing a trade blockade or embargo. The economic
dimension of foreign policy is a difficult subject to analyze, because international events are usually
the product of several causes, and the economic factors cannot always be separated from related
politico-military ones. In addition, inconsistency has at times characterized the American approach to sanctions, with the advocates’
own political orientation seeming to determine which course is followed.
C/I, The removal of economic sanctions or in this case the embargo is included under
economic engagement.
Haass 2000 (Richard, Summer 2000, Brooking Institute, “Terms of Engagement:
Alternatives to Punitive Policies”, pg
3,http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.p
df, accessed 6-24-13, WP)
Architects of engagement strategies can choose from a wide variety of incentives. Economic
engagement might offer tangible
incentives such as export credits, investment insurance or promotion, access to technology, loans and
economic aid. Other equally useful economic incentives involve the removal of penalties such as trade
embargoes, investment bans or high tariffs, which have impeded economic relations between the
United States and the target country. Facilitated entry into the economic global arena and the institutions that govern it rank
among the most potent incentives in today’s global market. Similarly, political engagement can involve the lure of diplomatic recognition,
access to regional or international institutions, the scheduling of summits between leaders – or the termination of these benefits. Military
engagement could involve the extension of international military educational training in order both to strengthen respect for civilian authority
and human rights among a country’s armed forces and, more feasibly, to establish relationships between Americans and young foreign military
officers. While these areas of engagement are likely to involve working with state institutions, cultural or civil-society engagement entails
building people-to-people contacts. Funding non- governmental organisations, facilitating the flow of remittances and promoting the exchange
of students, tourists and other non-governmental people between countries are just some of the possible incentives used in the form of
engagement.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
270
We meet. Economic engagement is impossible in a world of the embargo. The plan
creates the sustained conditions for further economic engagement with Cuba. The
definition of an embargo is to prevent economic engagement.
Merriam Webster No Date (Merriam Webster, No Date, Merriam Webster Dictionary,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embargo, accessed 6-24-13, WP)
1: an
order of a government prohibiting the departure of commercial ships from its ports ¶ 2: a legal
prohibition on commerce <a trade embargo>¶ 3: stoppage, impediment; especially : prohibition <I lay no
embargo on anybody's words — Jane Austen>¶ 4: an order by a common carrier or public regulatory agency prohibiting or restricting freight
transportation
271
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**PICs**
272
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Total Lift K/
Only Total Rejection stops Cuban Corruption and current policy fails
Ryan, 12-year veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service who previously worked on Capitol
Hill, 4/30
(Patrick, 4/30/13, The Hill, “Time to Drop Cuba From Terror List,”
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/guest-commentary/296867-former-usdiplomat-patrick-ryan-, 6/24/13, ND)
The Castros have used the listing and embargo as excuses for their economic mismanagement and the
dismal plight of ordinary Cubans for decades. The last time momentum existed in the U.S. Congress
towards lifting it, the Cuban government shot down two small planes flown by the exile group “Brothers to the
Rescue” that allegedly violated their airspace, ensuring the embargo and listing would continue. ¶ I am well
aware of the poor human rights record of the regime and am not an apologist for it. The incarceration of Alan Gross, a USAID
subcontractor who brought communications gear into Cuba, contrary to Cuban law, is regrettable, but should not hold U.S.-Cuban
relations hostage. Nevertheless, it’s time for a new approach, as the current anachronistic policy has failed
miserably for more than a half century.
Removing the Embargo is Long Past Overdue and no part of it is necessary. Any Cuban
threat to the U.S. ended long ago
Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, 12
(Doug, 12/11/12, The National Interest, “Time to End the Cuban Embargo,”
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-pointless-cuba-embargo-7834, 6/24/13
ND)
Washington reduced Cuban sugar import quotas in July 1960. Subsequently U.S. exports were limited, diplomatic ties were severed, travel
was restricted, Cuban imports were banned, Havana’s American assets were frozen, and almost all travel to Cuba was banned. Washington also
pressed its allies to impose sanctions.¶ These various measures had
no evident effect, other than to intensify Cuba’s
reliance on the Soviet Union. Yet the collapse of the latter nation had no impact on U.S. policy. In 1992, Congress
banned American subsidiaries from doing business in Cuba and in 1996, it penalized foreign firms that trafficked in expropriated
U.S. property. Executives from such companies even were banned from traveling to America.¶ On occasion
Washington relaxed one aspect or another of the embargo, but in general continued to tighten restrictions, even over
Cuban Americans. Enforcement is not easy, but Uncle Sam tries his best. For instance, according to the Government Accountability
Office, Customs and Border Protection increased its secondary inspection of passengers arriving from Cuba to reflect an
increased risk of embargo violations after the 2004 rule changes, which, among other things, [and] eliminated the allowance for
travelers to import a small amount of Cuban products for personal consumption.¶ Three years ago, President Barack
Obama loosened regulations on Cuban Americans, as well as telecommunications between the United States and Cuba.
However, the law sharply constrains the president's discretion. Moreover, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said that the
embargo will continue until Cuba is free.¶ 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 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
273
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**AT: Embargo Good**
274
275
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Embargo Fails
Cuban-American community is the #1 reason the embargo isn’t effective – turns and
mitigates your constituency links.
Weinmann, Senior Fellow Director of the World Policy Institute, 04
(Lissa, World Policy Journals, “Washington’s Irrational Cuba Policy,” eLibrary, Accessed June 24, 2013,
RJ)
The more recent emigres travel back to Cuba frequently to maintain their ties to their families. Under
U.S. law, they are limited to one visit a year, but they get around the restriction by traveling illegally
through third countries, just like the vast majority of Americans who travel to Cuba. Cuban Americans
carry or send cash back home at a rate of $1 billion a year, according to U.N. statistics. Most of this
money is also transmitted in violation of the embargo, which sets low limits on such remittances.
Cubans on the island are thus able to spend the money in government-run enterprises. That makes the
Cuban-American community a principle source of revenue for the Castro regime, and the number one
factor undermining the effectiveness of the U.S. embargo.
The embargo doesn’t work
**I’m not quite sure how to label this card, it really goes both ways, it has warrants that say that Cubans
BLAME Castro because of the embargo, also that it probably doesn’t link to politics b/c no one cares
about Cuba, as well as AFF warrants about how the embargo doesn’t work**
Brinkley, professor of journalism at Stanford, 12/ 18
(Joel, December 18, 2012, POLITICO, “Cuba embargo isn’t working but isn’t going away”,
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=895BE08E-CAF7-4539-A2E2-1E0E00F617F6 , ACCESSED
June 24, 2013, RJ)
America’s embargo on Cuba began its 53rd year this fall, and it’s hard to find anyone who thinks it’s
working. Even Cuban-Americans who hate the Castro brothers and fervently insist that the embargo remain in place generally
agree that it has accomplished little, if anything.¶ Still, said Jaime Suchlicki, a Cuban émigré who is the director of the Cuba
Transition Project at the University of Miami, “do you give away a policy that has been in place for 50 years, whether you think it’s right or
wrong, good or bad, effective or not — for nothing? Without a quid pro quo from Cuba?”¶ Suchlicki came to the United States in the first wave
of Cuban refugees in 1960 after the communist revolution. His hardline views mirror those of many in his generation. And for decades, it
dominated the Cuba discussion in Florida, a state presidential candidates have long believed they need to win to be elected.¶ But today the
Cuban-American population is more diverse, as the U.S. presidential election last month showed. Previously, CubanAmericans regularly voted in favor of Republicans, who are generally staunch embargo supporters, by 4 to 1. This time,
President Barack Obama won half their vote.¶ 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 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.¶ But for so many people in Washington, “Cuba doesn’t matter any more now,” said Ted Piccone, deputy director for
foreign policy at the Brookings Institution and a former National Security Council official. “There’s no political incentive” to
change the policy — even though the arguments for changing it are rife. Despite ample provocation, the U.S. doesn’t impose similar
embargoes on other authoritarian states.¶ Late last month, for example, Kazakhstan said it planned to shut down the last of its independent
and opposition media, meaning “pluralism would quite simply cease to exist in this country,” Reporters Without Borders said in a news release.
But has anyone talked about imposing an embargo there?¶ In September, Cambodia, one of the world’s most repressive nations, sentenced
Mam Sonando, a 71-year-old radio station owner, to 20 years in jail for criticizing the government on air. He’d been broadcasting for decades.
At about the same time, newspaper journalist Hang Serei Odom was found dead in the trunk of his car, hacked to death with an ax. He had
been writing about illegal logging, a long-standing problem in Cambodia.¶ Despite that and much more, Obama visited Phnom Penh last month,
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
276
attending an Association of Southeast Asian Nations conference. Has anyone in Washington advocated imposing an embargo there? Suchlicki
said, “Maybe we should.”¶ “Despite political tensions” with Venezuela, another authoritarian state in Latin America, the State Department says:
“The United States remains Venezuela’s most important trading partner. In 2011, bilateral trade topped $55.6 billion.”¶ The State Department
endlessly debates this question about foreign aid that applies to Cuba: Cutting off aid to a nation removes any ability to influence it, one side of
the debate goes. But the counterargument is: Does that mean the U.S. should continue giving aid to a brutal, repressive government? It’s a
quandary with no clear solution.¶ In this debate, Egypt is the state du jour. Last month, Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) issued a news release
calling on “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to immediately suspend U.S. aid to Egypt, saying ‘American taxpayer dollars should not be used to
aid and abet any nation that stands with terrorists.’” In Congress, he was hardly alone in that view, but the State Department is resisting.¶ Of
course, the U.S. embargo of Cuba arose from a totally different set of circumstances, in 1960 at the height of the Cold War and Washington’s
unremitting opposition to Communism. Cuba was allying itself with the Soviet Union. Fidel Castro also nationalized American property on the
island. (Even as he announced the embargo, President John F. Kennedy sent his aide, Pierre Salinger, to buy him 1,000 Cuban cigars, Petit
Upmanns, in the hours before the full embargo took effect.)¶ After the Soviet Union fell in 1991 that reasoning fell away, but at that time the
Cuba lobby in Miami was at its strongest. Looking at the embargo today (Cuba calls it “the blockade”), its principal accomplishment is that “it
has given Fidel Castro and Raúl Castro the perfect scapegoat on which it can blame all their problems,” argued Ted Henken, a fervent Cuba
expert at Baruch College in New York. A few days ago, Cuba’s Ministry of Education asserted that “the 50-year trade embargo imposed by the
United States has severely undermined the country’s education efforts.”¶ Piccone said most Cubans aren’t buying that argument. “The
average Cuban is not blaming the U.S.” he said. “I’ve seen polling on this. They’re blaming the system.”¶
Henken said the embargo “has strengthened the revolution” and “ceded Cuban policy to the most conservative Cuban-Americans.” Even
Suchlicki acknowledges that the
embargo has accomplished “nothing substantial,” though he adds: “That’s not an
argument for changing it.Ӧ Some Cuba experts argue that allowing American tourists to visit Cuba for the first time since 1960 might
bring the beginnings of substantial change by fostering greater prosperity. They point to China, a passive agrarian society until the government
opened the economy, pulling millions of Chinese out of poverty. Suddenly, these newly prosperous people began standing up to their
government, demanding greater freedom and opportunities. The same could be true for Cuba, Henken said.¶ President Raúl Castro has opened
the economy a bit, allowing more free enterprise. But apparently wary of this threat, his efforts have been small, cautious and halting.¶ The
changes “are only half-hearted in the sense that [Cuban officials] are taking it slow,” Piccone said. “The want to manage it; they don’t want to
undermine their political position.”¶ Henken jokingly calls Suchlicki “old Ironsides ” for his continuing support of the embargo. Most CubanAmericans of Suchlicki’s era agree with his position. In Henken’s view, though, “it’s really hard to keep justifying it since it hasn’t borne any
fruit.” Cuban-Americans seem to be coming to the same view. A recent poll by Florida International University in Miami showed that just 50
percent of Cuban-Americans still support the embargo, “well below its heyday,” the university said in a news release. “This, despite 80
percent believing that the embargo has not worked very well or not well at all.”¶ “We ought to change our
tactics,” Piccone said, and “think of other ways to support our goals.”¶ Right now, though, Cuba and the embargo are not
occupying even a moment of attention in Washington, given the urgent concerns about Iran, North Korea, the fiscal cliff
and so much else. But that will almost certainly change next month.¶ In October, the Cuban government gave its people permission to travel at
will beginning in mid-January. Well, since 1966 the Cuban Adjustment Act has afforded every Cuban who reaches the United States by any
means automatic refugee asylum. Now, with travel to the U.S. legalized, some in Congress — including outgoing Rep. David Rivera (R-Fla.), a
fervent embargo supporter — are talking about hurriedly revising the act before the new Cuban law takes effect next month and thousands of
Cubans begin stepping off airplanes.¶ Suddenly Cuba could be thrust to center stage in Washington again. That may prove to be the time, some
experts say, when serious discussion of the embargo could be on the table again, for the first time in more than 50 years.
The Embargo is useless – 2 warrants
Chapman, editorial writer and columnist for the Chicago Tribune, 4/15
(Steve, April 15, 2013, reason.com, “It’s Time to End the U.S. Embargo of Cuba,”
http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/15/its-time-to-end-the-us-embargo-of-cuba/print, ACCESSED
6/24/13, RJ)
The communist regime in Cuba was just about to come tumbling down, ending decades of dictatorship and opening the way for freedom and
democracy. But before that could happen, Jay-Z and Beyonce took a trip to the island. So Cuba's despotism can expect to survive another 50
years.¶ Well, maybe I exaggerate. It's just possible that the musical couple's presence or absence was utterly irrelevant to Cuba's future.
Americans have somewhat less control over the island than we like to imagine.¶ The U.S. embargo of Cuba
has been in effect since 1962, with no end in sight. Fidel Castro's government has somehow managed to outlast the Soviet
Union, Montgomery Ward, rotary-dial telephones and 10 American presidents.¶ The boycott adheres to the stubborn logic of
governmental action. It was created to solve a problem: the existence of a communist government 90
miles off our shores. It failed to solve that problem. But its failure is taken as proof of its everlasting
necessity.¶ If there is any lesson to be drawn from this dismal experience, though, it's that the economic quarantine has been
either 1) grossly ineffectual or 2) positively helpful to the regime.¶ The first would not be surprising, if
only because economic sanctions almost never work. Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Nope. Iran? Still waiting. North
Korea? Don't make me laugh.¶ What makes this embargo even less promising is that we have so little help in trying to apply
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
277
the squeeze. Nearly 200 countries allow trade with Cuba. Tourists from Canada and Europe flock there in search of beaches, nightlife and
Havana cigars, bringing hard currency with them. So even if starving the country into submission could work, Cuba hasn't starved and
won't anytime soon.¶ Nor is it implausible to suspect that the boycott has been the best thing that
ever happened to the Castro brothers, providing them a scapegoat for the nation's many economic
ills. The implacable hostility of the Yankee imperialists also serves to align Cuban nationalism with Cuban communism. Even Cubans
who don't like Castro may not relish being told what to do by the superpower next door.¶ Normally it is no
business of the federal government where private citizens want to spend their vacation time. But among those who claim to speak for the
Cuban exile community, it is anathema for anyone to visit the island as long as the communists hold power. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., was
among those lambasting the couple for daring to venture where he doesn't want them to go.¶ Rubio claimed that people who make visits to
Cuba "either don't realize or don't care that they're essentially funding the regime's systematic trampling of people's human rights." Such
activity, he said, "provides money to a cruel, repressive and murderous regime."¶ That may be true. But U.S. law allows Americans to visit the
island according to certain rules enforced by the Treasury Department, and some 500,000 people from the U.S. go each year. The rules for
cultural trips were tightened last year after Rubio griped that they were too lax.¶ "The trip was handled according to a standard licensing
procedure for federally approved 'people to people' cultural tours to the island," reported Reuters, "and the power couple received no special
treatment, said Academic Arrangements Abroad, the New York-based group that organized the trip."¶ When
it comes to sending
money to a "cruel, repressive, murderous regime," Rubio's outrage is strangely selective. The same
accusation could be laid against anyone who travels to China, Vietnam or Burma -- all of which are
open to American visitors, as far as Washington is concerned.¶ Our willingness to trade with them
stems from the belief that economic improvement and contact with outsiders will foster liberalization
rather than retard it. But the opposite approach is supposed to produce this kind of progress in
Cuba.¶ Do trade and tourism work to weaken repression? The evidence is mixed. But our attempted economic
strangulation of Cuba has been an emphatic bust. We keep trying it, and the communist government remains in full
control, making a mockery of our strategy.¶ The U.S. government has been tireless in pursuing a policy that does not look
better with time. It could benefit from the advice of W.C. Fields, who said, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then
give up. No use being a damned fool about it."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
278
Embargo Fails – Trade
Embargo doesn’t restrict trade—U.S. traders ignore
Bukspan, Staff Writer for CNBC, ’10. (Daniel, 5/25/10,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37256542, Accessed 6/24/13, ARH)
Despite an economic embargo against Cuba that has existed for a half century, Americans and citizens
of US allies routinely conduct business with the country, including trade and tourism. In 1960, the
Castro regime seized all American property and industry in Cuba. In response, the United States imposed
an embargo against the nation. No American citizens could travel there and no American companies
could do business there. Known to Cubans as “el bloqueo” (“the blockade”), these restrictions were
written into US law decades later, as the Cuban Democracy Act, passed by Congress and signed by
President Bush in 1992. The goal of the law was to promote “a peaceful transition to democracy in
Cuba through the application of sanctions.” At the time, normalized trade with the US might have been
a valuable incentive for compliance with the 1992 law. The Soviet Union, Cuba’s primary backer, had
collapsed one year earlier, devastating the tiny nation’s supplies of medicine, food and oil. Had Cuba
satisfied the law’s conditions and adopted a free-market, democratic system, the embargo would
have been lifted and essential goods could have been imported from the US, just 90 miles away. But
the Castro regime wouldn’t budge, and the ban remains in effect. The consensus among a wide range
of journalists and politicians is that the embargo has not achieved its objectives. The fact that it still
stands, 50 years later, would seem to support that belief. But while the Castro regime’s devotion to
Communism has kept the embargo in place, there are other actors offering ways around it. Many of the
provisions of the embargo are bypassed with the help of countries that do business with Cuba, despite
their own close ties to the United States. The Netherlands and Canada are Cuba’s primary trading
partners, and Canadian and European tourists have been regular visitors since the late 1990s. The Cuban
government has been only too happy to help this situation along by allowing direct acceptance of the
euro in tourist areas and by waiving conversion surcharges against British pounds and Canadian dollars.
As a result, tourism has boomed and America’s allies have helped it thrive. The Cuban-American
community also plays a role in the embargo’s lackluster results. Despite almost uniform anti-Castro
sentiment, many Cuban-Americans still send money to family members back home, a practice that has
persisted for years. This activity has been so widespread that in 1993, the Cuban government made
the U.S. dollar legal tender. This status was rescinded in 2004, and a 20 percent surcharge is now
levied on all US currency conversions. But despite the fees and despite the law, the money keeps
getting sent anyway.
The Embargo is ineffective-- products still get through barriers
Israel, writer on Foreign Relations for Reuters, ’10.
(Esteban, 10/2/10, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/02/us-cuba-usa-piracyidUSTRE6814IM20100902 , accessed 6/24/13, ARH)
But half a century of U.S. sanctions have turned Cuba into a piracy haven and a missed opportunity for
U.S. businesses. Even though the embargo forbids U.S. companies like Microsoft from exporting
software to Cuba, most personal computers on the island run unlicensed copies of its Windows
operating system. Pirated copies of the latest version, Windows 7, have been available for months from
illegal vendors in Cuba. The blue-skinned aliens of "Avatar," James Cameron's blockbuster film,
appeared on Cuba's state television in February while the movie was still breaking box office records
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
279
around the world. Surfing Cuba's five television channels, all state-owned, a viewer could stumble across
shows such as Disney Channel's "Hannah Montana" and NBC's "Friends," or movies like Dreamworks'
"Madagascar 2". Video games of all types are sold by software pirates in Cuba for the equivalent of
about $2. "The reality is that U.S. products and services are down there whether the companies that
make them sell them or not," said Jake Colvin, Vice President for Global Trade Issues at the National
Foreign Trade Council in Washington. "The frustrating thing is that U.S. companies are getting nothing
for it," he told Reuters. The trade embargo, imposed since 1962 with the aim of toppling the Caribbean
island's communist government, forbids most U.S. business with Cuba, with the key exception of
agricultural products, and, under certain restrictions, medicines. Cuba's unofficial position is that the
embargo limits access to so many products that it forces people to resort to piracy.
Purpose of Embargo hypocritical and ineffective—U.S. key trade partner to Cuba
Merco Press, South Atlantic News Agency, ’08
(10/200/08, News Designated to outline problems in the South Atlantic,
http://en.mercopress.com/2008/08/20/us-is-cuba-s-fifth-trading-partner-in-spite-ofthe-embargo, accessed 6/24/13, ARH)
This represents 100 million US dollars increase over 2006 when US farm and food sales totaled 484
million US dollars. The US is now Cuba's fifth largest trading partner after having begun selling to Cuba
in 2002 under an amendment of the embargo. By 2006 and 2005, the US has already become the
seventh trade partner. Venezuela and China figure as Cuba's top trading partners with 2.698 billion and
2.457 billion US dollars respectively. Canada is placed third and Spain fourth, each at more than one
billion US dollars. Before the 1959 Cuban revolution that swept Fidel Castro into power, the United
States was Cuba's top trading partner by far. In 1962, the United States imposed a trade embargo still
in place today. An ever powerful anti Castro Cuban lobby in Washington has since impeded any close
links with the island. Cuba's total trade in 2007 was 13.8 billion, with exports of 3.7 billion and imports
of 10 billion US dollars. US food trade with Cuba is expected to grow even further this year because of
the high prices of imports such as corn, wheat, soy and chicken. US members of Congress contrary to
the embargo and the Cuban government have repeatedly said that lifting the trade embargo entirely
would result in the US grabbing a much larger share of Cuba's trade and increasing its influence in
Havana.
Embargo is Ineffective—Flow of Goods through Black Market proves
Muzenrieder, Writer for the Miami Times, ’10
(Kyle, 8/11/10,
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/08/underground_trade_between_cub
a.php, accessed 6-24-13, ARH)
Cuba has been a communist state for more than 50 years, but that doesn't mean there isn't lots of
underground capitalism going on. For almost as long as the United States has had a trade embargo on
the island nation, there's been a significant amount of black-market activity. You can place all sorts of
ideological government limits on trade, but you can't squash humans' desire to make some money
and buy things. In fact, underground trade between Americans and Cubans is thriving thanks, in part,
to Barack Obama lifting some travel restrictions for Cuban-born Americans. While there are few official
statistics gauging the amount of black-market trade between the two countries, a Reuters report claims
that in 2008, "Cuban exiles in the United States sent to the island some $636 million in 2008 and
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
280
probably slightly less in 2009 due to the economic downturn." About 60 percent of that trade goes
through unofficial channels such as human mules. Exiles, many of them living in Miami, pack coveted
goods before making visits to family on the island. From Reuters: It all starts with a description given
over a mobile phone: "Look for a woman with long blond hair, blue jeans, silver heels, and a black T-shirt
arriving on the next flight from Miami." When the woman emerges from Havana's international airport
pushing a cart loaded with bulky black duffel bags, she is greeted effusively by a man she has never seen
before. "They hug as if they had known each other all their lives. Once in the parking lot, the woman
hands over the bags and says goodbye," says Yanet, a Miami resident. She is describing the tactics of
growing numbers of human "mules" who regularly travel between the United States and Cuba
carrying in their bags loads of clothes, food, consumer goods, electrical appliances and millions of U.S.
dollars to the communist-ruled Caribbean island. They deliver the goods for a fee or free ticket, often
to complete strangers. "The system works beautifully," said Yanet, making her second trip as a "mule" to
Havana in less than a month. Sending money and goods through mules is often preferable than the
legally available channels. Mules cost less, and money usually arrives faster. Goods sent through mules
are usually priced lower than similar products sold in state-run stores. Reuters claims a $700 TV set
bought in Miami could go for $2,000 in Cuba when smuggled in through a mule. That same TV set might
cost $2,500 through a state-run store. Besides necessities such as toiletries and food, luxuries including
electronic goods and designer knock-off sunglasses and purses are also hot-ticket items for mules. The
underground trade has seen a recent boom thanks to President Obama's lifting of travel restrictions
for Cuban exiles and the amount of money they can take with them.
281
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Lifting Solves
Florida and Cuban current trade shows that a removal of the embargo would increase
government revenue in the US and Cuba
Landau, Professor Emeritus, California State University, Pomona 1/27
(Valdes, , The Huffington Post: U.S.-Cuba Policy: A Boon for Cuban-American Entrepreneurs,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com, 6/23, EB)
The time has come and almost gone for Washington to repair its broken relations with Cuba. For 53
years the White House has maintained a punishing embargo on trade with Cuba. Its proponents, with
the goal of removing Cuba's revolutionary government, still plead: "Give it time." In 2001 President
George W. Bush allowed for an exception permitting U.S. companies to sell agricultural products to
Cuba for immediate payment, although imports from Cuba remained off limits. Other economic sectors
received no benefits. Cuban-Americans, particularly from south Florida, now export goods and
remittances to relatives and friends while importing profits from sales made to fellow Cubans in Cuba,
giving them an advantage denied to the rest of the country. Washington pundits attribute superhuman
strength to the anti-Castro lobby; thus no President would attempt to lift the trade and travel
embargoes on the island. Yet Cuban-Americans trade with and travel to Cuba freely on a daily basis. The
"embargo" applies to everyone except Cuban-Americans. This growing international trade, disguised as
sending goods to needy family members in Cuba, now includes filling the hulls on 10 or more daily
charter flights from U.S. cities to Cuba. Cuban Americans send goods, often with "mules," to provide
family members in Cuba, needing supplies for their businesses. The "mules" return with cash, derived
from sales of these goods. Some of the new Cuban stores and restaurants supplied by Miami-based
Cubans make substantial profits, some of which get spent in Cuba, and ends up in Cuba's central bank.
Miami, the United States' poorest large city, derives income because it provides jobs involved in
buying and selling the goods sent to Cuba. Jobs also arise from routine tasks created around the daily
charter flights to and from Cuba, and the fees collected from take offs and landings. Add to this, the
work for accountants, bookkeepers and others. Some unemployed Cuban-Americans get jobs as mules
transporting the goods and money from one country to the other. Miami banks also benefit. In Cuba,
this trade also creates jobs and wealth. Mercedes runs a paladar [private restaurant] in Havana's
Vedado neighborhood, "because we draw tourists who like good food, which I serve at my paladar."
Some paladar customers flew to Havana from Miami. These Cuban-Americans come to visit relatives and
maybe check on their new investments in Havana family-run businesses. "Relatives in Florida supply me
with food I can't get easily in Cuba," Mercedes said, "like some spices, and packaged goods. I send them
money for these products. They make a profit, and so do I. The government makes money from taxes I
pay, and jobs grow in Cuba's tourist industry." U.S.-based charter flights have full hulls, even those with
few passengers. One charter flight company manager told us: "Passengers don't matter that much. The
hull is totally full." Much of the Cuba trade flows through the Miami International Airport, meaning
capital moves from the U.S. to Cuba; most of the luggage contents, however, remain in Cuba. The boon
to Miami airport services means jobs, fees and taxes, which remain as capital in south Florida. The goods
purchased in south Florida by Cubans (relatives, mules, etc) benefit local businesses. This trade
multiplies jobs throughout the area -- as well as it does for Cuba: In Miami sales emanate from stores
and lead to jobs in transportation, parking, hotel facilities, restaurants, and luggage-handling. Count the
businesses providing services to the people traveling to Cuba and sending goods there. Don't omit the
expanded police force, and extra officials required in immigration, and customs; nor fail to consider
jobs servicing air planes, and their jetways, and additional personnel needed for landings and take offs,
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
282
and extra jobs in airport administration and maintenance created by expanded travel. Think of Miami's
increased tax revenues. South Florida represents a Cuban settler state within the United States. It
counters its interests against those of the dominant society, with the society's ignorant acquiescence.
The Miami-based Cuban-Americans and their Cuba-based families have used U.S.-Cuba policy, the
embargo representing the power of the nation for their own self-interest, and in order to attain a
comparative advantage vis a vis the rest of the American population. Since 1960, commitment to
overthrow of the Cuban government has functioned as U.S. foreign policy on Cuba, a policy now
controlled informally by south Florida Cuban-Americans. The Cuban-American ethnic enclave assumed
the political power needed to turn south Florida into an autonomous Cuban settler state inside U.S.
boundaries, so that the embargo does not get applied to the Cuban-American enclave. The enclave
barons use the embargo to secure, for themselves, a protection of the Cuba trade monopoly. This
challenges stated U.S. national interests. Camouflaged by ubiquitous anti-Castro rhetoric, the CubanAmerican entrepreneurs have manufactured a lucrative business with the island, regulated by the very
government they pretend to hate. The rightwing congressional representatives pretend to fight for
every law to punish the "Castro regime" while in practice turn a dead eye to the growing trade that
helps Florida's and Cuba's economy. Preserve the embargo, but make an exception for Cuban
Americans.
By recognizing the facts about this trade, the White House might become inspired to lift the embargo -a move to benefit all Americans. U.S. government revenue would grow from opening trade and travel
with Cuba. In the process we might also regain a missing piece of U.S. sovereignty!
Lifting the Cuban Embargo will be profitable: agriculture proves
Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. ’05
(Daniel, Cato institute, “Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba” 10-12-05 <
http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba>, EB)
In 2000, Congress approved a modest opening of the embargo. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 allows cash-only sales to Cuba of U.S. farm products and medical supplies. The
results of this opening have been quite amazing. Since 2000, total sales of farm products to Cuba have
increased from virtually zero to $380 million last year. From dead last in U.S. farm export markets,
Cuba ranked 25th last year out of 228 countries in total purchases of U.S. farm products. Cuba is now
the fifth largest export market in Latin America for U.S. farm exports. American farmers sold more to
Cuba last year than to Brazil. Our leading exports to Cuba are meat and poultry, rice, wheat, corn, and
soybeans.
The American Farm Bureau estimates that Cuba could eventually become a $1 billion agricultural
export market for products of U.S. farmers and ranchers. The embargo stifles another $250 million in
potential annual exports of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and tractors. According to a study by the
U.S. International Trade Commission, the embargo costs American firms a total of $700 million to $1.2
billion per year. Farmers in Texas and neighboring states are among the biggest potential winners. One
study by Texas A&M University estimated that Texas ranks fifth among states in potential farm exports
to Cuba, with rice, poultry, beef and fertilizer the top exports.
Trade in the status quo is through middle men: the US could step in and improve trade
and secure profit
Jolly and Thompson ’08
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
283
(Curtis and Henry, Southern Economics and Business Journal Free Trade with Cuba: “The Effects of a
Lifted Embargo in Alabama”, EB)
There is little political rationale for the embargo as the US traded with other Communist countries
throughout the Cold War. The embargo not only failed to reach any political objective but also
spotlighted and strengthened Castro. With no embargo, Castro would have had no publicity and
shrinking support within Cuba. The Southeast and Alabama in particular suffered due to the embargo.
The US International Trade Commission estimates the embargo costs the US $1.2 billion annually in lost
export revenue, less than 0.1% of total US export revenue but focused on particular industries and
regions. The relaxed embargo in 2001 for humanitarian exports of food and medicine to Cuba
catapulted Alabama trade to over $126 million by 2004. Political pressure from US agribusiness
contributed to the relaxed trade embargo. By 2006, Cuba accounted for 1/4 of Alabama agricultural
export revenue. Cuba has substantial production potential. Cuba is the largest island in the Caribbean,
about as large in land area as Alabama, and 2/3 of the land can be cultivated. Cuba’s population of 11
million is about twice that of Alabama, and about equal to Georgia or the combination of Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Arkansas. Cuba’s major agriculture exports are sugar, citrus fruit, fish, cigars, and
coffee, while Alabama’s are poultry, cotton, peanuts, soybeans, and feed grains. There would be little
immediate direct competition in agricultural trade between Alabama and Cuba, and opportunity for
profitable trade on both sides. Cuba also has mineral deposits of nickel (world’s second largest
reserves), cobalt, iron, copper, chromite, manganese, zinc, and tungsten, not to mention unexplored
petroleum potential. Cuba has no potential to export manufactures at present but that will change with
foreign investment. Cuba trades with the US through third countries and smuggling. Exports from
Europe, South America, and Asia to Cuba have higher transport costs than from the US. Mobile is only
600 nautical miles or a two day sail from Havana, and was the dominant port prior to the embargo.
Under the present relaxed embargo, Alabama ships poultry, catfish, soybeans, and eggs to Cuba. About
$30 million of poultry was shipped during 2006. Other major exports are utility poles, lumber, and
cotton.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**AT: Gradualism Better**
284
285
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Immediacy Best
Lifting Embargo immediately is best – cuts off existing and potential effects
Ratliff, Research fellow with PhD in Latin American history, Fontaine, Former director
of Latin American affairs for the national security council, 2000
(William, Roger, Hoover Institution, “End the Embargo Now,” 7/30/2000, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6511,
AFGA).
There are two basic ways to lift the embargo: all at once or piecemeal. Lifting it unilaterally and all at
once would be the better way to go. The act should be accompanied by clear statements that Castro
has been dropped from America’s "Most Wanted" to its "Least Relevant" list. The point is not that
declaring a one-sided truce with Castro—by lifting the embargo—will necessarily bring democracy to
and improved human rights in Cuba but rather that the embargo has not brought these either and
shows no signs whatsoever of being able to do so in the future. Lifting it would also reduce the
prospects of assorted actual and potential bad side effects.
Gradual reform is bad – current institutions are ineffective
Hinderdael, Research Assistant at Bridging Nations Foundation, 2011
(Klaas, Bologna Central Journal of International Affairs, “Obama's Cuba Policy and a Guideline for Improved Leadership,” 6/11/2011,
http://bcjournal.org/volume-14/breaking-the-logjam.html?printerFriendly=true, AFGA).
A "gradualist" reform path for Cuba would, of course, imply that the ownership of state enterprises
do not ¶ change hands, at least in the initial stages. Raúl Castro will certainly be tempted to maintain
state ownership ¶ to avoid unemployment and social unrest. But Cuba will not likely be able to rely on
the good graces of state enterprise managers. Indeed, there is evidence that some "spontaneous"
privatization is already underway in ¶ Cuba. According to Edward Pauker and Kevin McCarthy of the
RAND Corporation, many of the corporations ¶ created out of the private sector reforms in the 1990s
have become profit-sharing arrangements for the Cuban ¶ equivalent of the nomenklatura, the pinchos
grandes who, as with their Eastern European counterparts, have ¶ occasionally used their position to
steal their companies' equipment and assets. ¶ As Cuba has moved down a path of internal
transformation, beginning to unclench control over its own society, President Obama has slowly reached
out. On January 14, 2011, the administration stepped toward a more active engagement by restoring
higher education exchange programs, extending travel remittance allowances to all Americans, and
permitting chartered flights to Havana from anyUSairport.19 though this progress indicates that
relations are steadily improving, a potential breakthrough in relations and America’s Cuba policy is
only possible by opening high-level diplomatic relations and eliminating the US embargo.¶
A large change in policy in needed – current policy will not lead to a breakthrough
Haven, Chief of Bureau/Havana, Cuba at The Associated Press, 2013
(Paul, The Vancouver Sun, “Relations thaw between Cuba, US: Small signs indicate the two longtime enemies are narrowing the gap in the
Florida Straits,” 6/22/2013, http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Relations+thaw+between+Cuba/8564785/story.html, AFGA).
The State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that calls into
question Havana's commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama administration continues to
demand democratic change on an island ruled for more than a half century by Castro and his brother
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
286
Fidel.¶ Ted Henken, a professor of Latin American studies at Baruch College in New York who helped
organize a recent U.S. tour by Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez, said the Obama administration is
too concerned with upsetting Cuban-American politicians and has missed opportunities to engage with
Cuba at a crucial time in its history.¶ "I think that a lot more would have to happen for this to amount
to momentum leading to any kind of major diplomatic breakthrough," he said. "Obama should be
bolder and more audacious."
Investors are ready, but progress is too slow in status quo
Lacey, deputy foreign editor for the New York Times, 2010
(Marc, The New York Times, “Dreaming of Cuban Profits in Post-Embargo World,” 3/28/2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/world/americas/29cuba.html?scp=4&sq=cuba&st=cse, AFGA).
Tourism Minister Manuel Marrero Cruz says Cuba is not waiting for the Americans.¶ Although Cuba remains
closed to American investment, dreamers in both countries are actively considering the money-making
possibilities that the island might offer once the half-century-old travel and trade embargoes imposed by the
United States become policies of the past.¶ “Cuba does have problems,” said Kirby Jones, a business
consultant, stating the obvious at the start of a meeting last week that brought American travel industry executives
and Cuban government officials to Cancún to strategize on what might, and what might not, play out in the years
ahead.¶ Mr. Jones urged potential investors to banish certain words from their minds — Bay of Pigs, dissidents,
Elián González, hijackers and socialism, for instance — and to focus on the fact that the Cuban government had
already joined more than 200 joint ventures with foreign corporations, none of them American.¶ “Everyone is
there, except us,” he told the travel agents, hoteliers, tour operators, charter companies and others with an eye on
Cuba. “There are offices and representatives of over 500 companies around the world. Nobody knows when it will
open up for Americans, but it will.Ӧ But as Cuban officials nodded and participants scribbled notes, the
likelihood of wholesale change in American-Cuban relations, widely considered a possibility in the early
days of the Obama administration, seemed slim.¶ On Wednesday, the day the conference began, President
Obama was scolding Cuba for its treatment of dissidents. “Instead of embracing an opportunity to enter a new era,
Cuban authorities continue to respond to the aspirations of the Cuban people with a clenched fist,” Mr. Obama
said in a statement.¶ And Cuban papers were reporting Fidel Castro’s written comments the same day calling Mr.
Obama a “fanatic” when it comes to capitalism and dismissing his remarks on Cuba as “foolishness.”¶ Senator
Byron L. Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, is pushing legislation that would lift the ban on travel, and he offered
an optimistic view of his bill’s chance of passing this year. But he also told the Cuban officials at the meeting that
they were endangering the legislation by jailing an American government contractor, Alan P. Gross, whom the
Cubans accuse of espionage but the State Department says was engaged in democracy-building.¶ “That sort of
thing is a problem and a hindrance to change U.S. policy toward Cuba,” said Mr. Dorgan, addressing the
conference by telephone.¶ The highest ranking Cuban official in attendance, Tourism Minister Manuel Marrero
Cruz, brushed off questions of Mr. Gross’s jailing as being outside his portfolio. But he did say that the Cuban
government was not concerned about large numbers of visiting Americans prompting any change to Cuba’s
government or culture.¶ As for the likelihood that the embargo would end soon, he shrugged. “It’s impossible to
predict,” Mr. Marrero said. “We have many scenarios. We are not waiting for the Americans. We’re
developing tourism for others around the world.”¶ The same thing has happened in other aspects of Cuba’s
economy, as the government, which is dependent on imports, has struck deals with countries like China, Venezuela
and Iran as well as Britain, France and Spain.¶ “Cuba already trades with the rest of the world,” said Philip Peters,
an expert on the Cuban economy at the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, a policy research group. “A lot of the
opportunities are taken already.Ӧ But Cuba may yet offer healthy profits one day to American entrepreneurs who
manage to get in.¶ “It’s going to be a very slow process,” said John S. Kavulich II, an adviser to the U.S.-Cuba
Trade and Economic Council in New York
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
287
There is no reason to continue embargo – causes economic problems and stunts
development
Villarreal, reporter on Latin American affairs, 2012
(Ryan, International Business Times, “UN Calls For End To US Embargo Of Cuba,” 11/14/2012, http://www.ibtimes.com/un-calls-end-usembargo-cuba-880522, AFGA).
Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla criticized the embargo before the Assembly, saying
“there is no legitimate or moral reason to maintain this blockade.”¶ “The blockade is one of the main
causes of the economic problems of our country and the major obstacle to its economic and social
development. ... Any sensible person could figure out the living standards and development levels
that we could have achieved if we had had those resources available,” Rodriguez added.¶
Removing the embargo now will help our economies and the Cuban people
Baucus, Us Senator from Montana, 2008
(Max, Hearing Before The Committee On Finance United States Senate, “United States – Cuba Economic Relations,” 9/4/2008, AFGA).
In contrast, the U.S. can open economic relations with Cuba with¶ a mere stroke of a pen; no
negotiations, no drain on our negotiating¶ resources, just a single act to end this failed embargo.¶ The
U.S. will receive immediate and genuine economic benefit.¶ As importantly, the Cuban people will see
an immediate and genuine¶ benefit. Will lifting the embargo cure the economic crisis in¶ rural America?
Of course not. Will lifting the embargo solve all the¶ problems of the Cuban people overnight? Again,
of course not. But¶ it is the only way to start.¶ If you look across our borders into the world, we see a
host of¶ problems, whether it is in the Middle East or in our own region.¶ These problems affect us here
in the United States. We neglect our¶ neighbors at our own peril.¶ President Bush understood the
importance of international engagement¶ when he sought the renewal of trade negotiating authority.¶
He also remarked that free trade is a proven strategy for building¶ global prosperity, adding
momentum in the political field. I¶ could not agree more.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
AT: Conditions CP
288
289
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Unconditional Key
The U.S. Should lift the Embargo Unconditionally
Fox News, Popular and Well-known News Source, ‘09
(Fox News, 9/16/09, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/09/16/cuba-says-liftembargo-unconditionally/, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
Cuba will not make any political or policy concessions to improve relations with the U.S. — no matter
how small, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said Wednesday, snubbing Washington's suggestions that
some reforms could lead to better ties. He told a news conference that the United States must lift its
47-year-old trade embargo without waiting for anything in return. Rodriguez said U.S. trade sanctions
have cost the island $96 billion in economic damage since they took their current form in February
1962 as part of the Trading with the Enemy Act. "The policy is unilateral and should be lifted
unilaterally," Rodriguez said. He called President Obama "well-intentioned and intelligent" and said that
his administration has adopted a "modern, less aggressive" stance toward the island. But Rodriguez
shrugged off the White House's April decision to lift restrictions on Cuban-Americans who want to visit
or send money to relatives in this country, saying those changes simply undid a tightening of the
embargo imposed by President George W. Bush. "Obama was a president elected on a platform of
change. Where are the changes in the blockade against Cuba?" Rodriguez asked. Cuban officials have
for decades characterized American trade sanctions as a blockade.
Demand for the U.S. to unconditionally lift the Embargo
Yujia, writer for China.org, ’12
(Ma, 10/11/12, http://www.china.org.cn/world/2012-10/11/content_26762575.htm,
accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
"The US blockade against Cuba is defined as an act of genocide by the 1948 Geneva Convention, which
is the main hindrance to Cuba's economic and social development," Cuban Ambassador to China
H.E.Mr.Alberto J. Blanco Silva said on Thursday at a press conference, "The United States should end
the blockade immediately and unconditionally." According to the ambassador, Cuba will submit to the
consideration of the UN General Assembly for the 21st time the draft resolution entitled "Necessity of
ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed against Cuba by the United States
of America" on November 13th. Every year Cuba submits the abovementioned draft ahead of what has
become an annual vote in the United Nations on a resolution condemning the embargo. Last year, 186
countries voted in favor of the resolution, whereas only the U.S. and Israel supported the embargo. This
outcome formed the irrefutable proof that Cuba's battle for lifting the blockade had the gained the
recognition and support of the vast majority of the international Community.
Repealing of Cuban Embargo must be Unconditional—Empirics Prove
Links, International Journal of Socialist Renewal, NDG
(Links, NDG, http://links.org.au/node/716, Accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
This unilateral course of measures had caused irreparable damage to the Cuban people’s welfare, she
stressed, along with damage to the process of integration in the region. She concluded by reiterating
continued commitment to the utilization of multilateralism as an effective tool in dispute settlements
between States, and for the advancement of human rights and understanding amongst peoples. Also
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
290
speaking after the vote, the representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic said her delegation
opposed the continued unilateral embargo against Cuba. The embargo directly violated the principles
and objectives of the United Nations Charter. It also continued to cause undue suffering and hardship
to the Cuban people, and hindered their socio-economic development. Noting the overwhelming
support for the resolution by the Assembly, over many consecutive years, including its adoption
today, she said such support confirmed the friendship and solidarity of the international community
with the Cuban people, and the call for an immediate, unconditional lifting of the embargo against
Cuba.