AT: Inherency
No inherency – travel restrictions are already decreasing, and the 1AC is already
in the pipelines
Haven, 6/22 – Writer for the Associated Press and Associated Press bureau chief in Havana, Cuba. Previous Chief of
Bureau/Spain and Portugal at The Associated Press, Chief of Bureau/Pakistan and Afghanistan at The Associated Press, Supervisory
Editor of AP. Cornell University Graduate. (Paul, the Associates Press, “Cuba, U.S. take steps toward rapprochement,” 6/22/13,
http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Cuba+take+steps+toward+rapprochement/8563980/story.html, accessed 6/25/13 IS)
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 publicly accusing them of being
CIA frontmen. 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 travelled 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.
***AT: Econ Lib Adv ***
Non-Unique – Econ Lib Now
Liberalization is happening right now – any plans to increase liberalization risk
destroying the small gains that have been made.
Haven, 6/22 – Writer for the Associated Press and Associated Press bureau chief in Havana,
Cuba, (Paul [Previous Chief of Bureau/Spain and Portugal at The Associated Press, Chief of Bureau/Pakistan and Afghanistan at The Associated Press, Supervisory Editor of
AP. Cornell University Graduate], “Cuba, U.S. take steps toward rapprochement,” The Associates Press, 22 June 2013,
http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Cuba+take+steps+toward+rapprochement/8563980/story.html, accessed 6/25/13)//IS
These are tiny, incremental gains
the prospects of going backwards are
high
"
, and
equally
."¶ 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. U.S. 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
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
limited free-market
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
Obama administration continues to demand democratic change on an island ruled for
to fighting human trafficking. The
more than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel.
Cuba’s economy is liberalized and free
Lindegren 6/18 – Editor-in-Chief, News at The Word Is Bond (Rebecca, “Cuban Economy Continues to Open, But the
Changes Will Come Gradually,” International Relations Online, 18 June 2013, http://ironline.american.edu/cuban-economy-continues-to-open-but-the-changes-will-comegradually/, accessed 2 July 2013)//AB
Castro
has
been prying open Cuba’s economy
Since assuming Cuba’s presidency in 2008, Raul
(brother to the ailing Fidel)
slowly
, leading a
steady change in attitude toward business and its potential benefits. The government has been making plans to open a new $350 million golf resort — a sport once denounced
as “bourgeois” by Fidel Castro. Several other
major tourism projects are under way , including a 1,300-berth marina and numerous airport
upgrades. On the broader economic front, small
allowed to buy and own
Internet access
businesses are multiplying rapidly , and Cuban citizens are now
homes, cars, and other property. Cuban
at more than 100 cyber-cafes spread
and government censorship
authorities recently announced plans to offer public
throughout the country, helping to overcome
the prohibitive
costs
obstructing residential access. Lest the changes be mistaken as a shift toward capitalism, Raul has emphasized that he is
simply updating Cuba’s socialist economic model. To stress the nationalistic focus of his reforms, the administration has been vigorously prosecuting foreign businessmen for
corruption. Several have been held without formal charges for nearly two years, though trials are expected to begin soon. The crackdown, which began with Canadian-Armenian
Sarkis Yacoubian in July 2011, prompted many foreign investors to flee the country, while encouraging those who remain to tread carefully. Cuba has long been a risky target for
foreign investment. Following independence from Spain in 1898 and from the United States in 1902, Cuba fell under a series of corrupt and militaristic leaders until Fidel Castro
led a rebel army to victory in 1959. Ruling with an iron fist for almost five decades, Castro oversaw the island nation’s Communist revolution, which was subsequently exported
throughout Latin America and Africa between the 1960s and 1980s with Soviet support. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, the cessation of
annual Soviet subsidies worth $4 to $6 billion caused a severe economic downturn in 1990. The standard of living for the average Cuban citizen has remained below 1990 levels
Castro has sought to
balance the slow loosening of Cuba’s socialist economic system with the need to maintain
political control. Change has been gradual, but has included measures to alleviate shortages of food, housing, consumer goods, and services, while
relaxing the government regulations long constraining enterprise development. In April 2011 the first Cuban
since — a fact that is often blamed on a comprehensive U.S. embargo originating in 1961. Since becoming president in 2008, Raul
Communist Party Congress held in almost 13 years approved plans for broad economic changes, expected to unfold over the coming years and decades.
Cuba is increasingly public and liberalized
Gupta, 12 – British foreign correspondent usually based in Latin America (Girish, “Cuba loosens
restrictions on private enterprise”, USA Today, 7 June 2012, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-06-07/cubaeconomy-castro/55448580/1, accessed 2 July 2013)//AB
After an ailing Fidel stepped back from power in 2006, his brother and now president, Raúl
Castro, slowly began to relax state controls on
commerce . Political repression and denial of rights of speech remain intact, but in an attempt at a China-style system, Raúl has tried to encourage a
private sector . Cuba began by cutting more than 20% of the government-employed workforce, which was largely
relegated to phantom jobs to make the claim that Cuba's social model created 100% employment. Castro allowed for an increased number of cuentapropista, or
self-employment licenses, to spur more small businesses. The licenses come with fixed amounts of taxes, regardless of the
profits made, and restrictions on how many people can be hired. Only enterprises that hire unskilled workers, such as restaurants and street vendors, are eligible for the
licenses. Professionals such as doctors and architects are banned from expanding their practices. Raúl Castro defended the pace of the changes, saying, "It is proceeding without
haste, so that we don't make new mistakes." There have been some noticeable changes.
Farmers have been able to lease government
land , and Cubans can buy and sell cars and property . Private guesthouses , normally a spare room in
someone's house that tourists can rent for the night, are found all over Havana.
Non-Unique – Econ Strong Now
Cuba’s economy is good now
Reuters, 4/4 – (Thomson, “Cuba economic reforms moving 'at a good pace:'”, Global Post, 4/4/13,
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130404/cuba-economic-reforms-moving-at-good-pace-castro)//AB
Reforms aimed at breathing new life into Cuba's decrepit Soviet-style economy are advancing "at a good pace,"
President Raul Castro said Thursday, dismissing calls for accelerated change. Since sweeping economic reforms
introduced in 2011 "we can see that we've advanced at a good pace," according to the daily Granma. The
president said that "the magnitude and complexity" of Cuba's problems "do now allow us to resolve them from one day to another,"
the state newspaper said. Castro
urged Cubans to "resist pressure from those who insist that we should
move faster," although he added that the country is currently "at a better moment" to push the
economic reforms forward. Castro, 81, took over from his ailing older brother Fidel in 2006 and has gradually been
overhauling island's antiquated Soviet-style economy. Measures include trimming state payrolls and allowing
more types of self-employment, handing over unused land to farmers, and allowing private
ownership of things like homes, cars, mobile phones and computers.
Economy Recovering now
CubaNews, 2/21/13 (CubaNews is an online newspaper founded in 1993 that is the world's leading source of business information on
Cuba, “Cuban economy improves a bit, but data hard to come by”, http://www.cubanews.com/sections/cuban-economy-improves-a-bit-but-data-hardto-come-by)
Cuba’s economy will grow 3.7% this year, up from 3.1% in 2012, while the deficit will
represent 3.6% of GDP in 2013, down from 3.8% last year (equivalent to 2.167 billion pesos).
Those are among the numbers released by Cuba’s National Assembly during its December session, which reported that most results fell short of 2012
goals. In particular, foreign investments came in 19% below target, mainly because of a slowdown in construction. Also not meeting goals were the
tourism, agriculture and industrial sectors, as well as food sales through state channels. Oil, gas and nickel production stagnated at 2011 levels, though
During 2013, the state will collect 47 billion
pesos in revenue (up 1.8%) while shelling out 50 billion pesos in expenditures (up 1.6%). State
investments will grow by 34%, according to the National Assembly’s Economic Committee, with 79% of such investments focused on
the sugar industry is recovering slowly, with a 20% increase in output last year.
“productive activities” — though no specific numbers or projects were released
Cuba’s economy is doing great even with U.S restrictions
Legon, 12 – (Elio, “Cuba’s Economy Progressing, Despite Obstacles”, Havana Times, 5/3/12,
http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=69060)//AB
The enemies of the Cuban Revolution never tire of repeating in any and every way they can — even in social
networks — that Cuba’s economy is a disaster, the socialist system has been a failure, the
revolution has destroyed the economy, etc., etc. All this is a colossal lie. For those people with poor
memories, I should remind them that due to US pressure, all of the Latin American countries (with the sole exception of Mexico)
broke off relations with Cuba in the 1960’s. Due to that blockade in our own geographic area, Cuba had to develop most of its trade
with the socialist countries of Eastern Europe and Asia. In the case of the East Europeans, this was through the mechanism known as
the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon). These trade
relations, being outside the system of
capitalist speculation, maintained fair and stable prices for goods – both imported and exported ones. In the
case of the Soviet Union, it would buy — at a fair price — all the sugar that Cuba was capable of producing. In addition it offered
low-interest loans to finance development projects, in keeping with the economic relations between fraternal countries. These were
not like the usurious credits extended by loan sharks like the IMF or the World Bank. They didn’t give us anything, and nor did they
subsidize us as is insidiously argued by some, and nor did they exploit us. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. As is widely
known, at the end of the 1980’s and the beginning of the 90’s, Eastern European socialism was destroyed do to a multitude of
factors, which aren’t my purpose for discussion here. Subsequently the Soviet Union was dismembered and dragged into capitalism.
With the disappearance of those mechanisms for commerce with that geographical area, Cuba found itself practically without
foreign trade. The country’s economy was left paralyzed to a great degree and, forced by this circumstance, to begin what was for all
Cubans an exceedingly difficult period: the so-called “Special Period.” Many of the enemies of Cuba bet that socialism on the island
would disappear, just like it did in Eastern Europe. This was a logical way of thinking for those who were unfamiliar with the Cuban
people, their ability to sacrifice and their determination to defend the achievements of the revolution. Any country in the world that
would have faced a situation like what Cuba faced would have had huge riots bringing the government down to its knees. However
the Cuban people are determined to defend their revolution at the cost of any sacrifice. The United
States tightened its blockade with the passage of the Torricelli Act in October 1992, claiming that this would be the coup de grace to
the revolution. The main objective of this law was to isolate Cuba from international trade to cause the economy to collapse. Failing
to achieve the expected results with the Torricelli Act, in March 1996 Bill Clinton signed the Helms-Burton Act. This
legislation prohibits Cuba from trading with subsidiaries of US companies in other countries and sanctions foreign businesspeople so
that they will not invest or trade with Cuba. This
acted in unison with other actions to form a veritable fence
around the Cuban economy. Despite all these obstacles and anti-Cuba laws, the economy in
Cuba is developing and growing each year. In 2011, the GDP grew at a rate of 2.7 percent and
plans for 2012 envisage a growth of 3.4 percent. In Cuba there is no unemployment; rather,
there are labor shortages in many areas of the economy. If we compare the Cuban economy
with those of the major capitalist countries in the world — which are either in a recession or on
the edge of one, with millions of people out of work, with just as many people having lost their
homes and many having to live in the streets, where there are large demonstrations in which
people are brutally repressed by the police, and where governments are going bankrupt — then
we have to ask: Who are the ones who have failed?
Alt Causes to Econ Lib
Alt cause – Embargo
Franks 12 – writer at Reuters, Google News, and Yahoo! News (Jeff, “Cuba says ending U.S. embargo would help both
countries,” Reuters, 20 September 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-cuba-usa-embargo-idUSBRE88J15G20120920, accessed 27 June 2013)//IS
Both the United States and Cuba would benefit if Washington would lift its longstanding trade embargo
against the island, but U.S. President Barack Obama has toughened the sanctions since taking office in 2009, a top Cuban official said on Thursday.¶ ¶ The
embargo, fully in place since 1962, has done $108 billion in damage to the Cuba economy, but also has
violated the constitutional rights of Americans and made a market of 11 million people off limits to U.S. companies, Foreign Minister
Bruno Rodriguez told reporters.¶ ¶ "The blockade is, without doubt, the principal cause of the economic problems of our
¶
country
and the essential obstacle for (our) development," he said, using Cuba's term for the embargo.¶ ¶ "The blockade
provokes suffering, shortages, difficulties that reach each Cuban family , each Cuban child,"
Rodriguez said.¶ ¶ He spoke at a press conference that Cuba stages each year ahead of what has become an annual vote in the United Nations on a resolution condemning the
embargo. The vote is expected to take place next month.¶ ¶ Last year, 186 countries voted for the resolution, while only the United States and Israel supported the embargo,
Rodriguez said.¶ ¶ Lifting the embargo would improve the image of the United States around the world, he said, adding that it would also end what he called a "massive,
flagrant and systematic violation of human rights."¶ ¶ That violation includes restrictions on U.S. travel to the island that require most Americans to get U.S. government
permission to visit and a ban on most U.S. companies doing business in Cuba, he said.¶ ¶ "The prohibition of travel for Americans is an atrocity from the constitutional point of
view," Rodriguez said.¶ ¶ Cuba has its own limits on travel that make it difficult for most of its citizens to leave the country for any destination.¶ ¶ Rodriguez said the elimination
In a moment of economic crisis, lifting the
blockade would contribute to the United States a totally new market of 11 million people. It would
generate employment and end the situation in which American companies cannot compete in Cuba," he said.¶ ¶ Obama, who said early in his presidency
of the embargo would provide a much-needed tonic for the sluggish U.S. economy.¶ ¶ "
that he wanted to recast long-hostile U.S.-Cuba relations, has been a disappointment to the Cuban government, which expected him to do more to dismantle the embargo.¶ ¶
He has lifted some restrictions on travel and all on the sending of remittances to the island, but Rodriguez said he has broadened the embargo and its enforcement in other
areas.¶ ¶ Fines against U.S. and foreign companies and individuals who have violated the embargo have climbed from $89 million in 2011 to $622 million so far this year, he
said.¶ ¶ U.S.-Cuba relations thawed briefly under Obama, but progress came to a halt when Cuba arrested U.S. contractor Alan Gross in Havana in December 2009.¶ ¶ Gross was
subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison for setting up Internet networks in Cuba under a controversial U.S. program that Cuba views as subversive.¶ ¶ Rodriguez dodged
questions about how U.S. policy toward Cuba might change if Obama is re-elected in November or if Republican candidate Mitt Romney wins the presidency, but said whoever is
in office will have a chance to make history.¶ ¶ "Any American president would have the opportunity to make a historic change," he said. "He would go into history as the man
who rectified a policy that has failed."
AT: US Key
The US is not critical to Cuba – it’s internationally self-sustained in SQUO
Cabañas 6/3 – Ambassador, recently appointed head of the Cuban Interests Section in
Washington (José R., “Seven myths and five facts about Cuban-US relations,” The Cuba Bug, 3 June 2013, http://thecubabug.blogspot.com/2013/06/seven-myths-andfive-facts-about-cuban.html, accessed 30 June 2013)//IS
Myth: Cuba is isolated and in desperate need of foreign economic partners.
Cuba has diplomatic relations with 190 member
countries of the UN system. One hundred and six countries and international organizations
are represented in Havana. The main scene of the failure of the policy of isolation against Cuba is precisely Latin America and the Caribbean. That region
has undergone a profound transformation process and has traveled in time from the unfortunate exclusion of Cuba from the OAS in 1963, until the election of Cuba as president
Cuba has been elected twice president of the Non-Aligned
Movement, member of the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC) and countless bodies of the United Nations system. In no multilateral issue Cuba has received a contrary vote by any of
the 188 member countries of the United Nations system as the United States does receive during the voting against the blockade. Cuba is building a
sustainable economic system, oriented to services and value-added production, benefiting
from the performance of the major investment of all these years: human talent. Cuba has mentioned on several occasions the
of the Community of Latin American States in 2013. Meanwhile,
complementary value of foreign investment for the country's economy, while recognizing the importance of its contribution in various sectors, but is not building its future
depending on favor by foreign capital.
AT: Human Rights Adv.
Tourism is net worse for human rights
Kamp, 09 - Senior Policy Advisor and Head of the desk Tourism Watch. (Christina, Tourism Watch, “Tourism Concern
Publication: "Putting Tourism to Rights”,” December 2009, http://www.tourism-watch.de/en/content/human-rights-–-primaryresponsibility, accessed 6/25/13, IS)
In a new report "Putting Tourism to Rights", the British campaigning
organisation Tourism Concern demands
action to end human rights violations in tourism. The report exposes the violations of human
rights that occur as a direct result of tourism through an examination of key articles of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) and subsequent UN declarations.¶ These include forced evictions, paving the way for
tourism development, e.g. for a game reserve in Ghana, the construction of an airport in Indonesia or the conversion of
agricultural land into golf courses in the Philippines. Indigenous peoples and traditional fishing communities are particularly
vulnerable, as their land rights are usually not secured by title deeds.¶ The
human right to water continues to be
violated in tourism, when resorts and other tourism projects undermine people's water supply
or pollute this vital resource, e.g. in the Gambia, Cyprus or South India. The exploitation of tribal peoples and their
cultures as tourist attractions also constitutes violations of human rates. Drawing upon confidential sources, Tourism Concern
reports how Burmese Kayan refugees, members of the ethnic Karen people, are literally "marketed" by Thai businessmen. Tourists
pay entrance fees to visit their villages. Their departure as refugees to other countries is being delayed or prevented.¶ Wages
and working conditions for tourism industry employees can be so poor that they violate
human rights. This is often the case for the poorly equipped porters who carry the tourists' luggage on expeditions in the
Himalayas, in the Andes or on Mt. Kilimanjaro. This work is in many cases endangering their health. The cost
can be frostbite, altitude sickness and even death. The most serious human rights violations in tourism
happen when women and children are sexually exploited for commercial purposes.
Turn – Transition War
Cuba’s transition to Capitalism will be violent and messy
Mesa-Lago et al 93 Distinguished Service Prof. of Economics and Latin American Studies at
the University of Pittsburgh [Carmelo, - Cuba After the Cold War. Print, 377-378]
In summery, we agree that Cuba’s current politico-economic model (continuismo) is not viable in the long run and will soon be
replaced. Mesa-Lago sees a shift toward militarization and repression (without significant economic change) since 1991. Fabian does
not discard this option, but believes that democratization either within a one-party state is possible (but unlikely), or under an
opening that includes other parties (although this is even less probable); Mesa-Lago virtually rejects that possibility, particularly the
second version. He and Fabian concur that the Chinese model of limited market reform and political repression would be more
preferable to Castro than democratization, but Mesa-Lago sees the chances of accepting the Chinese model to be low and, if
there will be a violent
end to socialism in Cuba.¶ These outcomes would not only inflict grave hardship on Cuba but
also damage the prospects of democratization in that country and create serious problems for
the United States. A military coup appears (at least to Mesa-Lago) as the most likely agent of
change, while a popular rebellion appears a more remote possibility. In case of a socialist downfall on the
implemented, would not last long. Both agree that if there is no peaceful transition to democracy,
island, there probably would be a stronger move toward the market than if the Chinese model were adopted. The prospects for
democracy will vary depending on many factors impossible to predict. We hope that whatever the new economic system is, it is
designed by taking into account the positive and negative experiences of adjustment and restructuring in Latin America and Eastern
Europe. Above all, such a system should try to save, as much as possible, the positive social accomplishments of the revolution while
The stability and democracy of the new Cuba will
largely rest on the success of an optimal combination of growth and equity—a difficult but not
impossible task for the Cuban people, tested for more than a century in their struggle for
freedom and a better life.
setting the basis for a more efficient and productive economy.
***AT: Democracy Adv.***
Turn – Transition War
Turn – Democratic transition empirically leads to war
Le Roy, Alex, 2012 (Alex Le Roy is an International Relations Graduate from the University of Portsmouth. Alex Le Roy is a frequent contributor
to Conflict & Security of the International Policy Digest, an online news site that has been featured in many prominent media sources, “Is Democracy
Good For Economic Growth? Part 2”, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/11/28/is-democracy-good-for-economic-growth-part-2/)
I previously argued that democracy
often inhibits the economic growth of developing states. This is
because democracy generally results in the diffusion of economic decision making throughout
the population, which exposes domestic businesses to larger, more efficient, foreign
competitors. Thus, I contended that centrally coordinated control over economic policy allows for greater long term growth, and the political
conditions most favourable for this are authoritarian ones. For example, all of the so called ‘Asian Tigers’ achieved
economic growth through the implementation of protectionist economic policies, which were coordinated via a centralised
authority. Moreover, almost all of these countries democratised only after their economies had
become developed. Nonetheless, they did democratise, which brings us to another question: Is economic growth good for democracy. And
the answer is, initially, no As stated in the first article, only three of the world’s top twenty richest countries are not democratic. Of these three, both
Saudi Arabia and Russia derive their wealth from the primary economic sector, resource extraction, in the form of non-renewable energy reserves. The
former, in particular, generates massive revenue from its abundant crude oil reserves, which constitute 95 percent of exports. Coupled with a relatively
In the case of
Russia, many people associate democracy with the chaos that ensued within Russia as a result
of the failed economic transition of the early 1990’s. As Russia embarked on an ambitious dual
transition (economic and political) from a communist system, a policy of economic ‘shock’
therapy created vast inequalities, resulting in the impoverishment of much of the population. Coupled with the 1998
financial crisis, it is not surprising that many ordinary Russians were very supportive of Vladimir Putin when he instigated a programme
of political and economic centralisation, which led to stable economic growth. Nonetheless, there are
small population, of which around a third are foreign expatriates, the kingdom is blessed with a very high per capita GDP.
renewed calls for democracy in Russia, demonstrated by several recent protests, and it is arguable that domestic conditions are favourable for political
reform, though such speculation is moot at present. The third country, China, has not yet matured economically, having undergone an economic
transition gradually since 1978. The result of this transition to a market economy has resulted in the largest industrial revolution in history, controlled
centrally through the government’s policy of pursuing five year plans. Consequently, the Chinese government has managed to maintain annual
economic growth at around 10 percent, maintaining its legitimacy by improving the lives of almost all of its citizens. Thus, the three exceptions to the
rule, which poses the question; why are these authoritarian regimes the exceptions, and not the rule? The answer, arguably, lies in the way that the
authorities deal with dissent. Significantly, as the Russian example illustrated, such dissent is largely fuelled by economic strife. Economic strife is
usually caused by market intervention. An example of market intervention is central planning.Ultimately, central planning undermines capitalism
because it distorts the ‘real’ market, the invisible hand, coined by Adam Smith to explain the way in which the market regulates itself through an
equilibrium of supply and demand. A contemporary example of this is the manner in which the Chinese authorities are fixing exchange rates to ensure
that their domestic currency, the Yuan, is being maintained at an artificially low value. The perceived benefit of this is a reduction in the cost of Chinese
exports to foreign consumers. Ultimately, this practice is unsustainable because it encourages inflation, which is only being managed at the present
time by the export boom, which will inevitably end. The prominent economist, Friedrich von Hayek, argued that the economy, in its vast entirety, is too
complex to be fully understood. Consequently, central planning results in a mismanagement that ultimately culminates in disaster; and as soon as it
becomes clear that the government does not have all the answers, people want to take decisions into their own hands. Thus, on a fundamentally
political level, the source of dissent becomes less significant than the way in which it is channelled. Within democracies, grievances can be dealt with
through a change of government effected by popular consent in the form of elections, as well as direct measures such as petitions. Authoritarian
regimes find discontent a lot harder to manage, primarily because they do not have this option. Furthermore, if authoritarian regimes do attempt to
utilise these measures, the public often correctly recognises them as contrived. As tensions build, the only means for authoritarian regimes to contain
dissent are repressive; and as the Arab Spring has recently illustrated, these lead to political polarisation, and, more often than not, failure. However,
the consequences of democratic transition are often ruinous for national economies, as the
price of democracy is usually paid in blood; armed rebellion, and in extreme cases, civil war.
So, in the short term, democracy is bad for economic growth. However, the long term impact of democratic
governance is the best thing possible for the economy.
Liberalization via tourism won’t trickle down
Cason 9 - a retired U.S. Foreign Service officer, most recently serving as Ambassador to Paraguay, a post he held from 2006 to
2008. Prior to that post, he was the Principal Officer of the US Interests Section in Havana (2002–2005). On January 20, 2011, he
became the new mayor of Coral Gables, Florida. (James Cason, “The Case for not liberalizing travel to Cuba,” Presented at the
University of Miami Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies Seminar
“U.S. Policy Towards Cuba: A Conversation with American Diplomats,” 1/23/09,
http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/website_documents/Cason-lecture.pdf, accessed 6/27/13, IS)
We typically hear four arguments for liberalizing travel and trade with Cuba. The first assertion¶ is that flooding Cuba with American
tourists will instill among Cubans a yearning for¶ democracy. Secondly, tourist spending, it is argued, will help average Cubans by
improving¶ their living standards or wages. Third, some argue that our policy of isolating the regime has¶ failed, so we should try
something different and they hold the belief that engagement will¶ promote positive change. Finally, libertarians will assert
Americans have a Constitutional right¶ to go wherever they choose, including Cuba.¶ 2¶ These arguments are dead wrong
and fundamentally reflect our inability to understand what it’s ¶ like to live in a totalitarian society
where all aspects of peoples’ lives are controlled and where¶ fear of state security is pervasive. As most Americans have never
experienced totalitarianism,¶ they make assumptions about what can be achieved in such a state that
are not grounded in¶ reality.¶ Impact of Tourism¶ Let’s examine he four arguments one by one, starting with the “Let’s
flood them with tourist”¶ proposal. Why won’t this work to bring democracy to Cuba? Fundamentally because the Cuban¶
authorities strictly limit and harshly penalize the interaction of ordinary Cubans with
foreigners.¶ The Law 80 of 1999 makes it a crime to take publications from foreigners and a
2004 Ministry of¶ Tourism internal memo to hotel workers prohibits them from interacting
with foreigners outside¶ the workplace or from accepting gifts. And about the only Cubans tourists will meet
are hotel¶ workers.¶ Almost all tourists to Cuba stay in four or five star hotels. These 103 hotels catering to foreign¶ tourists are
located predominantly in isolated areas where ordinary Cubans are denied access.¶ About 67% of the tourist hotels are located in
the remote Cays like Cayo Coco or in Varadero.¶ Castro has allocated only 18.6% of his tourist hotel rooms to Havana and vicinity.
There are¶ only 5632 rooms for some 10,000 tourists in Havana, a city of 2.1 million plus. That
works out¶ to one tourist per 210 Cubans. Tourists are diluted in this sea of ordinary Cubans, and can
make¶ no meaningful impact on society even if they wanted to or were permitted access to
Cubans.¶ Even though Raul Castro recently “allowed” Cubans at last to frequent previously offlimit¶ tourist hotels, this is a cosmetic measure designed to convince foreigners that Cuba is ¶
liberalizing. In fact, it is not. The regime charges average Cubans the highest rack rate to stay in¶ tourist hotels which are
expensive to begin with, and a night’s stay would require an average¶ Cuban’s salary for a year. So a foreigner will rarely encounter
tourists spend most of their time in allinclusive hotels where¶ regime-sponsored entertainment is brought in to amuse them. If they
a regular Cuban in his or her¶ hotel.¶ The vast majority of foreign
leave their isolated¶ enclaves, well guided tours to Potemkin villages where the guides control your experience and¶ retain their
The Cubans the tourists are
permitted to see and question are trained to say the right thing and¶ spontaneously hail Fidel
and his regime and joyously sing Guantanamera to show the foreigner¶ how they enjoy life without freedom. Castro has
put in place a tourist apartheid system that¶ monopolizes tourism’s benefits for the state
while minimizing the potentially deleterious impact¶ of rich, free tourists mingling among
poor, oppressed Cubans.
jobs by hoeing the regime line if asked inconvenient questions by curious tourists.¶
Turn – Lift Ban Hampers Demo
Liberalization won’t trickle down
Cason 9 - a retired U.S. Foreign Service officer, most recently serving as Ambassador to Paraguay, a post he held from 2006 to
2008. Prior to that post, he was the Principal Officer of the US Interests Section in Havana (2002–2005). On January 20, 2011, he
became the new mayor of Coral Gables, Florida. (James Cason, “The Case for not liberalizing travel to Cuba,” Presented at the
University of Miami Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies Seminar
“U.S. Policy Towards Cuba: A Conversation with American Diplomats,” 1/23/09,
http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/website_documents/Cason-lecture.pdf, accessed 6/27/13, IS)
We typically hear four arguments for liberalizing travel and trade with Cuba. The first assertion¶ is that flooding Cuba with American
tourists will instill among Cubans a yearning for¶ democracy. Secondly, tourist spending, it is argued, will help average Cubans by
improving¶ their living standards or wages. Third, some argue that our policy of isolating the regime has¶ failed, so we should try
something different and they hold the belief that engagement will¶ promote positive change. Finally, libertarians will assert
Americans have a Constitutional right¶ to go wherever they choose, including Cuba.¶ 2¶ These arguments are dead wrong
and fundamentally reflect our inability to understand what it’s ¶ like to live in a totalitarian society
where all aspects of peoples’ lives are controlled and where¶ fear of state security is pervasive. As most Americans have never
experienced totalitarianism,¶ they make assumptions about what can be achieved in such a state that
are not grounded in¶ reality.¶ Impact of Tourism¶ Let’s examine he four arguments one by one, starting with the “Let’s
flood them with tourist”¶ proposal. Why won’t this work to bring democracy to Cuba? Fundamentally because the Cuban¶
authorities strictly limit and harshly penalize the interaction of ordinary Cubans with
foreigners.¶ The Law 80 of 1999 makes it a crime to take publications from foreigners and a
2004 Ministry of¶ Tourism internal memo to hotel workers prohibits them from interacting
with foreigners outside¶ the workplace or from accepting gifts. And about the only Cubans tourists will meet
are hotel¶ workers.¶ Almost all tourists to Cuba stay in four or five star hotels. These 103 hotels catering to foreign¶ tourists are
located predominantly in isolated areas where ordinary Cubans are denied access.¶ About 67% of the tourist hotels are located in
the remote Cays like Cayo Coco or in Varadero.¶ Castro has allocated only 18.6% of his tourist hotel rooms to Havana and vicinity.
There are¶ only 5632 rooms for some 10,000 tourists in Havana, a city of 2.1 million plus. That
works out¶ to one tourist per 210 Cubans. Tourists are diluted in this sea of ordinary Cubans, and can
make¶ no meaningful impact on society even if they wanted to or were permitted access to
Cubans.¶ Even though Raul Castro recently “allowed” Cubans at last to frequent previously offlimit¶ tourist hotels, this is a cosmetic measure designed to convince foreigners that Cuba is ¶
liberalizing. In fact, it is not. The regime charges average Cubans the highest rack rate to stay in¶ tourist hotels which are
expensive to begin with, and a night’s stay would require an average¶ Cuban’s salary for a year. So a foreigner will rarely encounter
tourists spend most of their time in allinclusive hotels where¶ regime-sponsored entertainment is brought in to amuse them. If they
a regular Cuban in his or her¶ hotel.¶ The vast majority of foreign
leave their isolated¶ enclaves, well guided tours to Potemkin villages where the guides control your experience and¶ retain their
The Cubans the tourists are
permitted to see and question are trained to say the right thing and¶ spontaneously hail Fidel
and his regime and joyously sing Guantanamera to show the foreigner¶ how they enjoy life without freedom. Castro has
put in place a tourist apartheid system that¶ monopolizes tourism’s benefits for the state
while minimizing the potentially deleterious impact¶ of rich, free tourists mingling among
poor, oppressed Cubans.
jobs by hoeing the regime line if asked inconvenient questions by curious tourists.¶
America can’t protect citizens
Bustillo 13 (Mitchell of Columbia University, majoring in Engineering with a minor in Economics on a Pre-Law track. He is a
first-generation Cuban-American, a Hispanic Heritage Foundation Gold Medallion Winner, and a former United States Senate Page,
appointed by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.) “Time to strengthen the Cuban embargo” May 9, 2013
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/ Rayvon Dean
One example is the case of Alan
Gross, an American citizen working for USAID. He was arrested in Cuba in 2009
under the allegations of Acts against the Independence and Territorial Integrity of the State
while distributing computers and technological equipment to Jewish communities in Cuba. He
is currently serving the fourth of his fifteen-year conviction, is in poor health, and receiving little to no
aid from the U.S., according to the Gross Family website. In light of this, it is hard to believe that the U.S.
would be able to protect a large number of tourists in a hostile nation, especially when they
plan to ‘profess’ political freedom. This view is further promoted by the Ladies in White, a Cuban dissident group that supports the
embargo. They fear ending it would only serve to strengthen the current dictatorial regime because the real blockade, they claim, is within Cuba.
Allowing American travelers to visit Cuba does not help propel the cause of Cuban democracy;
it hampers it.
Turn- Tourism undermines Cuban democracy efforts
Bustillo 13 (Mitchell of Columbia University, majoring in Engineering with a minor in Economics on a Pre-Law track. He is a
first-generation Cuban-American, a Hispanic Heritage Foundation Gold Medallion Winner, and a former United States Senate Page,
appointed by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.) “Time to strengthen the Cuban embargo” May 9, 2013
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/ Rayvon Dean
Despite being Chávez’s handpicked successor, Maduro only won by a narrow margin and will
likely be forced to cut
spending on social programs and foreign assistance in an effort to stabilize Venezuela’s dire
economic problems. Therefore, now is the ideal time to take action. Without Venezuela’s
support, the Cuban government will assuredly face an economic crisis. Strengthening the
embargo to limit U.S. dollars flowing into Cuba would place further pressure on the Cuban
government and has the potential to trigger an economic collapse. A change in the Cuban
political climate is within reach.¶ According to U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, “Tourism to
Cuba is a natural resource, akin to providing refined petroleum products to Iran. It’s reported that
2.5 million tourists visit Cuba – 1.5 million from North America…1 million Canadians…More than 170,000 from England…More than
400,000 from Spain, Italy, Germany, and France combined – All bringing in $1.9 billion in revenue to the Castro regime.” This
behavior undermines the embargo, which is why the U.S. should urge other nations to adopt similar policies toward Cuba. A
strong and unyielding embargo, supported by the U.S. and its allies, is necessary to incite
political change. Furthermore, Sen. Menendez argues, “Those who lament our dependence on foreign oil because it enriches
regimes in terrorist states like Iran, should not have a double standard when it comes to enriching a brutal dictatorship like Cuba
right here in our own backyard.Ӧ If
the policy of the U.S. is to challenge these behaviors, then it must
also stand up to Cuba. It would be a disservice to squander the progress of the past 50 years
when opportunity is looming
No Transition Possible
Socialism stops transition
Index of Economic Freedom 13 – annual index and ranking created by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall
Street Journal in 1995 to measure the degree of economic freedom in the world's nations (“Cuba,” 2013 Index of Economic
Freedom, http://www.heritage.org/index/country/cuba, Accessed 26 June 2013)
economic policy is
resolutely Communist, and the regime rejects any moves toward genuine political or
economic freedom.
The average worker earns less than $25 a month, agriculture is in shambles, mining is depressed, and tourism revenue has proven volatile. But
AT: Lift Ban  Democracy
Tourism doesn’t spur democracy- empirics
Bustillo 13 (Mitchell, of Columbia University, majoring in Engineering with a minor in Economics on a Pre-Law track. He is a
first-generation Cuban-American, a Hispanic Heritage Foundation Gold Medallion Winner, and a former United States Senate Page,
appointed by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.) “Time to strengthen the Cuban embargo” May 9, 2013
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/ Rayvon Dean
When thinking of U.S.-Cuba relations, the trade embargo, or el bloqueo, is first and foremost on
people’s minds. In 2009, President Barack Obama eased the travel ban, allowing CubanAmericans to travel freely to Cuba, and again in 2011, allowing students and religious
missionaries to travel to Cuba, as recently demonstrated by American pop culture figures, Beyoncé and her husband JayZ. Despite a history of hostile transgressions, the U.S. is inconsistent with its implementation of
the embargo, which sends mixed signals to Havana and displays our weak foreign policy
regarding Cuba.¶ Undoubtedly, Cuba is capitalizing on this weakness by using the embargo as a
scapegoat for all of its woes without any immediate fear of reinstated restrictions. Because
the goal is to promote Cuban democracy and freedom through non-violent and non-invasive
means while refraining from providing any support to the current oppressive Cuban
government, the current legislation regarding the embargo and travel ban against Cuba needs
to be modernized and strengthened. The need for an embargo has never been more
important or potentially effective, even considering the current human rights and economic
arguments against the embargo.¶ Washington’s goal in its dealings with Havana is clear: facilitate the introduction and
growth of democracy while increasing personal freedoms. There are many who argue that the best way to
spread democracy is by lifting the embargo and travel restrictions. U.S. Rep. Michael Honda argues that
an influx of politically enlightened U.S. travelers to Cuba would put Havana in a difficult place, leading to their own people calling for
change. However,
this is erroneous. Due to the fractured and weakened state of the embargo,
over 400,000 U.S. travelers visited Cuba in 2011, making the United States the second-largest
source of foreign visitors after Canada, according to NPR’s Nick Miroff. Obviously, this influx of what
has been theorized to be liberty-professing tourists has not resulted in an influx of such
democratic ideals into this overwhelmingly federally controlled country.
Travel won’t lead to democracy
Saladrigas 10 – co-chair the Cuba Study Group in Washington, D.C. (Carlos A. Saladrigas, the
Sun Sentinel, “Ease travel to Cuba, help spur reform,” 9/28/10, http://articles.sunsentinel.com/2010-09-28/news/fl-cuba-forum-0928-20100928_1_yoani-sanchez-cuba-studygroup-travel-ban, accessed 6/28/13, IS)
On Wednesday, a congressional committee may vote on a bill that would allow all Americans to travel to Cuba. ¶ There have been
over 35 communist transitions. In every one of them, we engaged and helped bring about the gradual changes that eventually
brought the Iron Curtain down. Conversely, a policy of isolation, as we apply to Cuba, has no precedent of success anywhere in
bringing about the fall of a totalitarian system.¶ Ads by Google¶ ¶ Fidel Castro's strategy has been clear since the very beginning: that
the revolution, and the Cuban nation, are one and the same, indistinguishable and indivisible.
For nearly 50 years, we have been reinforcing that strategy through our policy and actions.
Obsessed with the Castro brothers, we've forgotten the people.¶ ¶ No wonder the vast majority of Cuban
dissidents on the island, the virtual who's who of Cuba's opposition, have asked for free travel. These range from Yoani Sanchez,
Cuba's famous independent blogger, to Guillermo Fariñas, whose recent hunger strike forced Cuba to release political prisoners.¶ ¶
American taxpayers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to break the Cuban government's information embargo. Yet,
we refuse to send our best carriers of information — our own people and our rich and diverse civil society. Why keep them at bay?¶
¶
Europeans have traveled to Cuba for years and have failed to bring about change. Ironically, they
fail to explain how keeping Americans away has equally failed to do so.¶ ¶ They miss that there
is no silver bullet.
Change is never brought from the outside. Only the Cuban people can cause change. ¶ ¶ Cuba is
now implementing the early steps of meaningful reforms. More is needed, but this is the time to step in and
facilitate a climate of change — best accomplished by increasing the rewards of change, diminishing its cost, and helping, engaging
and empowering the Cuban people.¶ ¶ The best-known human rights organizations argue for the end of the travel ban. With their
vast experience promoting human rights across the globe, they know that their work is greatly facilitated with ease of travel. In the
end, Congress will have an opportunity to side with the Cuban people, in their quest for freedom and change. Will they help the
Cuban people, or will they succumb to politics as usual?
.
American tourists will not affect democracy
Cason 09- Ambassador and former Chief of Mission for the US Interest Section of Cuba
[Ambassador James Cason, “Is it Time to Lift the Ban on Travel to Cuba?”, House Hearing, 111th Congress, US
Government Printing Office, 11/19/09, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53673/html/CHRG111hhrg53673.htm, accessed 6/28/13]
We typically hear four arguments for liberalizing travel. The first is that flooding Cuba with American tourists
will instill greater yearning or understanding of democracy in Cuba; secondly, that tourist spending will help average Cubans; third,
that our policy of isolating the regime has failed, so we should try something different; and finally, the libertarian argument that
Americans have a constitutional right to go wherever they choose.¶ Starting with the let us flood them with tourists proposal, why
won't this help bring democracy to Cuba? It is because the Cuban authorities strictly limit and
harshly penalize the interaction of ordinary Cubans with foreigners, and about the only Cubans tourists
are going to meet are hotel workers. There are 103 hotels catering to foreign tourists in Cuba. Sixty-seven percent of these are
located in the remote keys and in Varadero.¶ There are only 5,632 rooms for about 10,000 tourists in Havana, a city of 2.1 million.
That works out to one tourist for 210 Cubans. Tourists are simply diluted in this sea of Cubans. The regime charges average Cubans
the highest rack rate possible to stay in tourist hotels. That means that a night's stay would require an average Cuban's salary for a
year. Again, that is why you are not going to find a regular Cuban in your hotel.¶ The
Cubans the tourists are
permitted to see and question are trained to say the right thing. There is another problem
with this flood argument. Few Americans speak Spanish well enough to hold a conversation
on democracy or anything else with the average Cuban, who also rarely speaks English.
Tourists go to Cuba for rum, sun, cigars, song and sex. They don't go to Cuba to spread democracy. At any rate,
most Cubans know very well what democracy and freedom are. ¶ They have relatives, millions of
them abroad. They don't need to be convinced to love or understand democracy. What they
lack is a way to influence regime behavior. Tourism and trade have not brought down a
totalitarian regime anywhere in history. That is because dictators refuse to let tourism do its alleged subversive
work. If Castro thought that he could not control tourism, he simply wouldn't allow them in, but they can control it well.¶ In the
last decade alone, 15 million tourists from democracies have visited the island, including several hundred
thousand Americans. Despite this, Cuba has not democratized or even liberalized. In fact, it has gone
backwards. If tourism had any value as a catalyst for democracy, it would be the polyglot Europeans who would have a better
chance at engaging Cubans, yet
there is absolutely no evidence of any liberalizing impact of their stays
or imprint of their footprints on the regime's behavior.
Cuban People don’t access benefits
Cuban people do not receive benefits of tourism
Cason 09- Ambassador and former Chief of Mission for the US Interest Section of Cuba
[Ambassador James Cason, “Is it Time to Lift the Ban on Travel to Cuba?”, House Hearing, 111th Congress, US Government Printing
Office, 11/19/09, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53673/html/CHRG-111hhrg53673.htm, accessed 6/28/13]
15 million
Europeans have spent tens of billions of dollars there. The benefits go exclusively to the state.
Poor Jose has seen none of it. The regime knows how to and has prevented seepage or trickle-down
from tourist expenditures. The tourists stay at all-inclusive hotels. The state owns the hotels, the bars, the restaurants, the
clubs, the cigar and rum shops and the souvenir stands.¶ The tourists can buy very little from average Cubans,
and the hotel worker gets to keep very little of what a tourist spends. They only get 5 percent of the
Now to the argument that tourist expenditure will trickle down to the average Cuban Jose. Well, again,
salary that goes to the joint venture partners. They can't unionize, they can't complain, they can't fight back. Again, the Cuban
military controls the tourist industry. The third argument for a change in travel policy reflects the exasperation at the failure of
anybody's policies in the world, anybody's in the world, to induce Castro, the world's most successful enduring tyrant, to morph into
a democrat.¶ So the cry comes out, let us just try something different, but what would be a new policy for us has already been
tried and is policy in just about every country in the world, and there has been no positive impact on human or other fundamental
rights in Cuba as a result. Everyone in the world but us talks, engages, invests, travels and trades freely with the regime, giving it the
wherewithal to survive. We allow hundreds of thousands of Cuban-Americans to take goods and cash into Cuba and we sell Cuba a
good percentage of its food.
Americans do not have freedom to go to Cuba- lifting travel ban can be used as
leverage
Cason 09- Ambassador and former Chief of Mission for the US Interest Section of Cuba
[Ambassador James Cason, “Is it Time to Lift the Ban on Travel to Cuba?”, House Hearing, 111th Congress, US Government Printing
Office, 11/19/09, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53673/html/CHRG-111hhrg53673.htm, accessed 6/28/13]
Again, what impact has this had on the regime? Have they released political prisoners, allowed free elections, opened up the
internet, given labor rights, allowed families to start businesses, or given Cubans the right to travel freely and live where they want?
No.
Lifting the travel ban now will amount to giving away future leverage for nothing in return.
We should hold this in reserve until the demise of the Castro brothers. An end to the travel
ban should be used as leverage, as a carrot in support of those in a future transitional regime who will have a voice in
whether Cuba goes toward more or less freedom.¶ And regarding the so-called rights of travel of Americans to go anywhere they
the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 in Regan v. Wald that Americans do not have a
constitutional right to go where they want if the government has a policy reason not to allow
that travel. So before we normalize relations with Cuba, the regime must show it is normal. It must engage in dialogue with its
want,
own citizens. Normalization is not an end in itself.¶ We can't normalize with a totalitarian regime or cast aside our longstanding
focus on human rights in Cuba in a quest to do something different, or in our haste to end the Cuban problem as a foreign policy
issue. Normalization will result from Cuban actions to respect internationally recognized obligations and principles, and as we
debate the future of our Cuba policy, let us not cease our support for dissidents and civil society, people on the island who want to
have a say in what is best for their future. Thank you.
Cuban people do not receive benefits of tourism
Cason 09- Ambassador and former Chief of Mission for the US Interest Section of Cuba
[Ambassador James Cason, “Is it Time to Lift the Ban on Travel to Cuba?”, House Hearing, 111th
Congress, US Government Printing Office, 11/19/09, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG111hhrg53673/html/CHRG-111hhrg53673.htm, accessed 6/28/13]
Now to the argument that tourist expenditure will trickle down to the average Cuban Jose.
Well, again, 15 million Europeans have spent tens of billions of dollars there. The benefits go
exclusively to the state. Poor Jose has seen none of it. The regime knows how to and has
prevented seepage or trickle-down from tourist expenditures. The tourists stay at all-inclusive
hotels. The state owns the hotels, the bars, the restaurants, the clubs, the cigar and rum shops
and the souvenir stands.
The tourists can buy very little from average Cubans, and the hotel worker gets to keep very
little of what a tourist spends. They only get 5 percent of the salary that goes to the joint
venture partners. They can't unionize, they can't complain, they can't fight back. Again, the
Cuban military controls the tourist industry. The third argument for a change in travel policy
reflects the exasperation at the failure of anybody's policies in the world, anybody's in the
world, to induce Castro, the world's most successful enduring tyrant, to morph into a democrat.
So the cry comes out, let us just try something different, but what would be a new policy for
us has already been tried and is policy in just about every country in the world, and there has
been no positive impact on human or other fundamental rights in Cuba as a result. Everyone in
the world but us talks, engages, invests, travels and trades freely with the regime, giving it the
wherewithal to survive. We allow hundreds of thousands of Cuban-Americans to take goods and
cash into Cuba and we sell Cuba a good percentage of its food.
Lifting Restrictions k2 US Tourism
Lifting embargo key to American tourism
Cason 09- Ambassador and former Chief of Mission for the US Interest Section of Cuba
[Ambassador James Cason, “Is it Time to Lift the Ban on Travel to Cuba?”, House Hearing, 111th
Congress, US Government Printing Office, 11/19/09, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG111hhrg53673/html/CHRG-111hhrg53673.htm, accessed 6/28/13]
Again, what impact has this had on the regime? Have they released political prisoners,
allowed free elections, opened up the internet, given labor rights, allowed families to start
businesses, or given Cubans the right to travel freely and live where they want? No. Lifting the
travel ban now will amount to giving away future leverage for nothing in return. We should
hold this in reserve until the demise of the Castro brothers. An end to the travel ban should be
used as leverage, as a carrot in support of those in a future transitional regime who will have a
voice in whether Cuba goes toward more or less freedom.
And regarding the so-called rights of travel of Americans to go anywhere they want, the
Supreme Court ruled in 1984 in Regan v. Wald that Americans do not have a constitutional
right to go where they want if the government has a policy reason not to allow that travel. So
before we normalize relations with Cuba, the regime must show it is normal. It must engage in
dialogue with its own citizens. Normalization is not an end in itself.
We can't normalize with a totalitarian regime or cast aside our longstanding focus on human
rights in Cuba in a quest to do something different, or in our haste to end the Cuban problem as
a foreign policy issue. Normalization will result from Cuban actions to respect internationally
recognized obligations and principles, and as we debate the future of our Cuba policy, let us not
cease our support for dissidents and civil society, people on the island who want to have a say in
what is best for their future. Thank you.
No infrastructure
No solvency- lack of investment and infrastructure
Worgull 1/30 – Editorial Assistant and Hotelling Expert (Samantha Worgull, Hotel News Now,
“Cuba supply hurdles limit post-embargo growth,” 1/30/13,
http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/Article/9804/Cuba-supply-hurdles-limit-post-embargo-growth,
accessed 6/29/13, IS)
REPORT FROM THE U.S.—As Barack Obama enters his second term as United States president, Cuban travel industry
experts hope the administration will lift the travel ban that has prevented most Americans from visiting Cuba
for the past 50 years. But they fear the country’s lack of hotel supply might not satisfy that pent-up
demand.¶ “They already have a problem accommodating in Havana, Varadero and Cayo Largo,”
Timothy Ashby, who specializes in Cuban law and commerce as legal counsel at SNR Denton, said. “(The) travel ban will be
lifted, and they’re not ready for it.”¶ Jeremy Tang, managing partner at Hong Kong-based Hemingway Capital, which
makes investments in Cuban businesses and properties that are actively looking for a hotel development partner, echoed Ashby’s
concerns, explaining that supply
is needed first to satisfy organic growth within Cuba—regardless of
changes to the American travel embargo.¶ Based on statistics from the Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas, Cuba’s
national statistics office, tourist arrivals to Cuba increased from 2.5 million 2010 to 2.7 million in 2011. During the first quarter of
2012, foreign arrivals grew 5.3% over 2011. Ashby said he believes overall tourism growth during 2012 will end up rivaling or
surpassing 2011.¶ Cuba also could see an increase of outbound travelers with the recent easing of Cuban president Raul Castro’s
Travel Rule. As of 14 January, Cuban citizens will no longer need exit visas or invitations from a resident of a foreign country to travel
abroad, according to an article on Bloomberg.com.¶ For their part, foreign
parties who have invested in the hotel
sector to help aid such growth are reluctant to move forward with projects without knowing
the future of the U.S. and Cuba’s relationship, Ashby added.¶ “There’s a lot of money waiting outside of
Cuba,” he said. “There’s about $2 billion in funds to go into development in Cuba.”¶ A challenge that will make it
difficult for U.S.-based hotel brands unable to develop is Article 15 of the Cuban Constitution,
which states that virtually all land in Cuba is “socialist state property,” with the exception of a number of
carve outs.¶ Ashby said he knows of several brands that are still evaluating the possibilities, but he declined comment on which
ones.¶ Requests for comment to several global hotel chains were not returned by press time.¶ Development hurdles¶ The American
embargo notwithstanding, regulations
from the Cuban government makes development particularly
difficult for all foreign investors, who can only participate in the real estate sector in one of three ways, explained
Hemingway Capital’s Tang:¶ Separate entity/joint venture: Foreign investors form a Cuban commercial company and joint venture
between themselves and a Cuban partner.¶ Economic Association Contract: Foreign investors participate in individual contracts
between themselves and Cuban investors in which a joint venture is formed but without the “establishment of a legal entity distinct
from the parties.Ӧ Wholly-owned foreign company: Foreign investors form a commercial entity capitalized by their own foreign
capital and without the involvement of a Cuban partner.¶ Most foreign investors choose to go the joint-venture route, which
involves working with the Cuban government and leasing the land, Ashby said.¶ “It’s not illegal to actually own the property, but you
have to set up a Cuban corporation that owns the land,” Ashby said. “(It’s) less risky to move ahead with the lease and get through
the bureaucratic stuff.¶ “On one hand you have members of the Cuban government, and on the other hand you have old
communists who are resisting foreign investment,” he continued. “I think the pro-development force will win out because the
economy (in Cuba) is in bad shape.¶ The Cubanacán Group, the largest Cuban hotel and resort operator and owner—70 properties
including 15,000 rooms—and Gaviota, a hotel group that is part of the Cuban military and an arm of the Cuban government, are the
two main players making significant strides in hotel development, Tang said.¶ “They have quite an excessive build up of hotels in the
pipeline,” he said. “They have traditionally been in the all-inclusive market, but they are now trying to move into the 5-star
market.Ӧ Gaviota opened The Ocean Varadero El Patriarca, a 5-star all-inclusive beachfront resort located in Varadero, in
December. In 2013, the group plans to open Marina Gaviota.¶ Aside from Gaviota’s projects, Tang said he knows of one other hotel
that was opened in the past year in Trinidad.¶ “There's not a lot to show for the blood, sweat and tears,” he added.¶ Ashby
reiterated there’s
hardly any construction going on, but he knows of a few projects involving golf course hotels that
Cuba’s reemergence rolls out as
anticipated, it likely will do so at the expense of many other Caribbean countries, sources
said.¶ “(Cuba) offers a much more complete experience than other Caribbean destinations,” Ashby said. “Cuba has everything:
have been approved but have yet to break ground.¶ Cuba and the Caribbean¶ If
mountains, beaches, cultures, nightclubs and restaurants. It’s also a 45-minute flight from Miami, a two-hour flight from New York
City and one-and-a-half-hour flight from Atlanta.Ӧ Trinidad, in particular, attracts a lot of tourists, Ashby said. The Cuban
government has developed heavily within this area, operating five hotels in Playa Ancon, a beach in Trinidad, and plan to develop a
total of 20.¶ Tang said that some of the better 4- and 5-star properties are running above 80% occupancy.¶ “I’ve been going to Cuba
for 20 years, and I’m finding it difficult to book a hotel,” he said.¶ Tang offered praise of the country too, adding that it’s the only
well-rounded country in the Caribbean.¶ “In a day you can go fishing, go to museums, go watch a ballet and listen to some great
jazz,” he said.¶ “Cuba has been the forbidden fruit for 55 years now, and people are curious about it,” Ashby said.¶
Aff helps Castro
Aff strengthens Castro- Turns the case
Suchlicki 07 – d (Jaime Suchlicki, Front Page Magazine, “Don't Lift the Cuba Travel Ban,”
4/11/07, http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26082, accessed
6/29/13, IS)
There are a number of reasons the Cuba travel ban should not be lifted at this time:¶ American
tourists will not bring
democracy to Cuba. Over the past decades hundreds of thousands of Canadian, European and
Latin American tourists have visited the island. Cuba is not more democratic today. If
anything, Cuba is more totalitarian, with the state and its control apparatus having been strengthened as a result of
the influx of tourist dollars.¶ The assumption that tourism or trade will lead to economic and political
change is not borne out by empirical studies. In Eastern Europe, communism collapsed a
decade after tourism peaked. No study of Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union claims that
tourism, trade or investments had anything to do with the end of communism. A disastrous
economic system, competition with the West, successive leadership changes with no legitimacy, anti-Soviet feeling in Eastern
Europe and the failed Soviet war in Afghanistan were among the reasons for change.¶ There
is no evidence to support
the notion that engagement with a totalitarian state will bring about its demise. Only
academic ideologues and those interested in economic gains cling to this notion. Their calls for
ending the embargo have little to do with democracy in Cuba or the welfare of the Cuban
people.¶ The repeated statement that the embargo is the cause of Cuba’s economic problems is hollow. The reasons for the
economic misery of the Cubans are a failed political and economic system. Like the communist systems of Eastern Europe, Cuba’s
system does not function, stifles initiative and productivity and destroys human freedom and dignity.¶ As
occurred in the
mid-1990s, an infusion of American tourist dollars will provide the regime with a further
disincentive to adopt deeper economic reforms. Cuba’s limited economic reforms were enacted in the early
1990s, when the island’s economic contraction was at its worst. Once the economy began to stabilize by 1996 as
a result of foreign tourism and investments, and exile remittances, the earlier reforms were
halted or rescinded by Castro.¶ The assumption that the Cuban leadership would allow U.S. tourists or businesses to
subvert the revolution and influence internal developments is at best naïve.¶ Money from American tourists would
flow into businesses owned by the Castro government thus strengthening state enterprises.
The tourist industry is controlled by the military and General Raul Castro, Fidel’s brother.¶
American tourists will have limited contact with Cubans. Most Cuban resorts are built in isolated areas, are off limits to the average
Cuban, and are controlled by Cuba’s efficient security apparatus. Most Americans don’t speak Spanish, will have limited contact with
ordinary Cubans, and are not interested in visiting the island to subvert its regime. Law 88 enacted in 1999 prohibits Cubans from
receiving publications from tourists.¶ While providing the Castro government with much needed dollars, the economic impact of
tourism on the Cuban population would be limited. Dollars will trickle down to the Cuban poor in only small quantities, while state
and foreign enterprises will benefit most.¶ Tourist
dollars would be spent on products, i.e., rum, tobacco,
etc., produced by state enterprises, and tourists would stay in hotels owned partially or
wholly by the Cuban government. The principal airline shuffling tourists around the island,
Gaviota, is owned and operated by the Cuban military. Carlos Lage, the czar of the Cuban economy, reiterated
that the economic objective of the Cuban government is “to strengthen state enterprises.”¶ Once American tourists
begin to visit Cuba, Castro would restrict travel by Cuban-Americans. For the Castro regime, CubanAmericans represent a far more subversive group because of their ability to speak to friends
and relatives on the island, and to influence their views on the Castro regime and on the
United States. Indeed, the return of Cuban exiles in 1979-80 precipitated the mass exodus of Cubans from Mariel in 1980.¶
Lifting the travel ban without any major concession from Cuba would send the wrong message
“to the enemies of the United States”: that a foreign leader can seize U.S. properties without
compensation; allow the use of his territory for the introduction of nuclear missiles aimed at
the United Sates; espouse terrorism and anti-U.S. causes throughout the world; and
eventually the United States will “forget and forgive,” and reward him with tourism,
investments and economic aid.¶ Since the Ford/Carter era, U.S. policy toward Latin America has emphasized democracy,
human rights and constitutional government. Under President Reagan the U.S. intervened in Grenada, under President Bush, Sr. the
U.S. intervened in Panama and under President Clinton the U.S. landed marines in Haiti, all to restore democracy to those countries.
The U.S. has prevented military coups in the region and supported the will of the people in free elections. While the U.S. policy has
not been uniformly applied throughout the world, it is U.S. policy in the region. Cuba is part of Latin America. A normalization of
relations with a military dictatorship in Cuba will send the wrong message to the rest of the continent.¶ Supporting regimes and
dictators that violate human rights and abuse their population is an ill-advised policy that rewards and encourages further abuses.¶
A large influx of American tourists into Cuba would have a dislocating effect on the economies
of smaller Caribbean islands such as Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, Puerto
Rico, and even Florida, highly dependent on tourism for their well being. Careful planning
must take place, lest we create significant hardships and social problems in these countries.¶
Since tourism would become a two-way affair, with Cubans visiting the United States in great numbers, it is
likely that many would stay in the United States as illegal immigrants, complicating another
thorny issue in American domestic politics.¶ If the travel ban is lifted unilaterally now by the U.S., what will the U.S.
government have to negotiate with a future regime in Cuba and to encourage changes in the island? Lifting the ban could be an
important bargaining chip with a future regime willing to provide irreversible concessions in the area of political and economic
freedoms.¶ The
travel ban and the embargo should be lifted as a result of negotiations between the
U.S. and a Cuban government willing to provide meaningful political and economic
concessions or when there is a democratic government in place in the island.
***AT: Gradualism (See AT: Embargo Aff)***
***AT: Constitution Adv.***
The 5th amendment has been broken multiple times in the past, and the impact
still hasn’t happened.
Friedersdorf, 12 – (Conor, “Scandal Alert: Congress Is Quietly Abandoning the 5th
Amendment”, The Atlantic, 12/20,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/scandal-alert-congress-is-quietlyabandoning-the-5th-amendment/266498/)//AB
It may seem like reiterating the right to due process contained in the 5th Amendment would
be uncontroversial. It may seem like a United States senator would be widely ridiculed for suggesting that American citizens
can be imprisoned indefinitely without chargers or trial, and that if numerous U.S. senators took that position, the press would treat
the issue with at least as much urgency as "the fiscal cliff" or the possibility of a new assault weapons bill or likely nominees for
Cabinet posts. It may seem like the American citizens who vocally fret about the importance of adhering to the text of the
Constitution would object as loudly as anyone to the prospect of indefinite detention. But
it isn't so. The casual news
consumer cannot rely on those seemingly reasonable heuristics to signal that very old norms are giving
way, that important protections are being undermined, perhaps decisively. We've lost the courage of our convictions -- we're that
scared of terrorism (or of seeming soft on it). News junkies likely know that I'm alluding to a specific law that has passed
both the Senate and the House, and is presently in a conference committee, where lawmakers
reconcile the two versions. Observers once worried that the law would permit the indefinite
detention of American citizens, or at least force them to rely on uncertain court challenges if
unjustly imprisoned. In response, Senator Dianne Feinstein tried to allay these concerns with an amendment: An
authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or
trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress
expressly authorizes such detention. You'd
think the part about American citizens being protected from
indefinite detention would be uncontroversial. It wasn't. But the amendment did manage to pass in the
United States Senate. Afterward everyone forgot about it pretty quickly. But not Charlie Savage. He's a journalist at The New York
Times. If every journalist were more like him the United States government would be far less able to radically expand the president's
unchecked authority without many people noticing. Here is his scoop: Lawmakers charged with merging the House and Senate
versions of the National Defense Authorization Act decided
on Tuesday to drop a provision that would have
explicitly barred the military from holding American citizens and permanent residents in
indefinite detention without trial as terrorism suspects, according to Congressional staff members familiar with the
negotiations. Says Adam Serwer, another journalist who treats these issues with the urgency that they deserve: Of the four main
negotiators on the defense bill, only one of the Democrats, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), opposes domestic indefinite detention of
Americans. The Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), believes detaining Americans
without charge or trial is constitutional, and only voted for the Feinstein amendment because he and some of his Republican
colleagues in the Senate convinced themselves through a convoluted legal rationale that Feinstein's proposal didn't actually ban the
practice. Both
of the main Republican negotiators, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck"
McKeon (R-Calif) and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) believe it's constitutional to lock up American citizens
suspected of terrorism without ever proving they're guilty. There is a complication, as he notes: Civil liberties
groups "aren't shedding any tears over the demise of the Feinstein-Lee amendment," because they objected to the fact that it
protected only U.S. citizens and permanent residents, rather than all persons present in the United States. While I respect that
principled stand, the more important thing is that this outcome puts us all at greater risk of having a core liberty violated, and that
Senators McCain, Levin, and many other legislators suffer no consequences for failing to protect and defend the United States
Constitution. As Serwer puts it, "The demise of the Feinstein-Lee proposal doesn't necessarily mean that Americans suspected of
terrorism in the US can be locked up forever without a trial. But it ensures that the next time a president tries to lock up an
American citizen without trial -- as President George W. Bush previously tried -- it will be left up to the courts to decide whether or
not it's legal." Don't let the dearth of attention fool you -- this is a scandal. Congress
has turned its back on
safeguarding a core Constitutional protection and a centuries old requirement of Western
justice. Rage, rage against the dying of the 5th.
Travel restrictions are still constitutional
Tent 09, - (Big, “Do the Restrictions On Cuba Travel Violate The Constitution?”, Talk Left: The
Politics of Crime, 4/14,
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/4/14/95319/3944/foreignaffairs/Do-the-Restrictions-OnCuba-Travel-Violate-The-Constitution-)//AB
In the wake of President Obama's announced initiatives on Cuba, I've been reading some commentary that the restrictions on travel
to Cuba are unconstitutional. As
a general matter, travel restrictions imposed by the Executive and the
Congress (see the Helms Burton Act (PDF)) are constitutional. See Zemel v. Rusk and Regan v. Wald. In Regan, the court
held: [A]lthough the ban in question effectively prevented travel to Cuba, and thus diminished the right
to gather information about foreign countries, no First Amendment rights of the sort that controlled in Kent
and Aptheker were implicated by the across-the-board restriction in Zemel. And the Court found the
Fifth Amendment right to travel, standing alone, insufficient to overcome the foreign policy
justifications supporting the restriction. . . . We see no reason to differentiate between the travel
restrictions imposed by the President in the present case and the passport restrictions imposed by the
Secretary of State in Zemel. Both have the practical effect of preventing travel to Cuba by most American citizens, and both are
justified by weighty concerns of foreign policy. Thus, a general ban on travel to Cuba is constitutional. The
question now being raised (though it is not new) is whether allowing persons with family in Cuba to travel (and presumably also to
send money to relatives) to Cuba violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I'll discuss that theory on the flip.
AT: Relations Add-on
AT: Cuba Relations
Relations thawing now – talks occurring. Plan is just a minor extension of that
Adams 6/19 [David Adams, Reuters, 6/19/13,
http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_23495457/u-s-cuba-restart-migration-talks#ixzz2XF05JgqO]
U nited S tates and Cuba have agreed to resume regular migration talks in a possible sign
of thawing relations after more than three years of tensions over Cuba's jailing of a U.S. government contract worker.¶ The
announcement of the talks Wednesday came as Cuban and U.S. officials met in Washington for discussions exploring the
restoration of direct mail service between the two countries after a 50-year ban.¶ The new round of migration
MIAMI — The
talks on July 17 "do not represent a significant change in U.S. policy towards Cuba," a State Department official said on condition of
anonymity.¶ Migration between the two countries has long been a thorny issue. Diplomatic relations have been frozen since soon
after Cuba's 1959 revolution led by Fidel Castro, and hundreds of thousands of Cuban exiles fled their homeland for South Florida in
the decades that followed.¶ Migration talks were suspended in 2003 by President George W. Bush. The talks were briefly revived by
the Obama administration in 2009, but were suspended again in 2011, when American contractor Alan Gross was sentenced to 15
years in prison for installing Internet networks for Cuban Jews in a U.S. program Cuba considers subversive.¶ Gross' arrest in late
2009 and sentencing in March 2011 stalled a brief period of detente in U.S.-Cuba relations after President Barack¶ Obama took
office early in 2009 and quickly loosened restrictions on travel and remittances to the island for Cuban Americans with relatives in
Cuba.¶ Cuba relaxed its own restrictions on travel in January, increasing the number of Cubans able to travel legally to the United
States and allowing several prominent dissidents to travel abroad freely since then.¶ "In the past two months, a
very slow
thaw in U.S.-Cuban relations has been perceptible," said Geoff Thale, program director for the
Washington Office on Latin America.¶ "These are modest but sensible steps. What's significant is less the
steps themselves than the fact that there is movement in the relationship. It's a real break from
the status quo."¶ U.S. officials played down the significance of the migration talks, noting that it was consistent with a broader
policy of engagement with countries the U.S. does not have full diplomatic relations with.¶ One senior official said the talks are part
of a wider U.S. engagement with the region, citing recent trips to Latin America by Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of
State John Kerry.¶ Kerry is a longtime advocate of greater engagement with Cuba, and his confirmation as Secretary of State early
this year encouraged to supporters of lifting the embargo.¶ Many obstacles remain, foremost among them a 51-year-old U.S. trade
embargo that by law can only be lifted if Cuba agrees to abandon its one-party communist system.¶ In a statement on Wednesday,
Cuba described the postal talks as fruitful but emphasized that a "stable, quality and safe postal service" could not resume while the
embargo was in place.¶ The most immediate stumbling blocks to any long-term warming of relations continue to be the fate of
Gross, as well as four Cuban spies jailed in the United States.¶ Cuba has hinted it might release Gross if the United States agrees to
free the four spies who are considered national heroes by Havana. Washington says releasing them is out of the question, noting
that one of the four was sentenced to life for conspiracy to commit murder.¶ Cuba recently agreed to allow an American doctor to
examine Gross, satisfying a longstanding demand by his family and the U.S. government. Gross, 64, has lost 100 pounds, in jail, and
relatives want him treated for a tumor.
Plan not unique to relations – relations are thawing now.
Haven, 6/22 – Writer for the Associated Press and Associated Press bureau chief in Havana,
Cuba. Previous Chief of Bureau/Spain and Portugal at The Associated Press, Chief of
Bureau/Pakistan and Afghanistan at The Associated Press, Supervisory Editor of AP. Cornell
University Graduate. (Paul, the Associates Press, “Cuba, U.S. take steps toward rapprochement,”
6/22/13,
http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Cuba+take+steps+toward+rapprochement/8563980/story.
html, accessed 6/25/13 IS)
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 publicly accusing them of being CIA frontmen.
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 travelled 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.
***Case Offense***
AT: Tourism Now
Still unique – American tourism market would be enormous
Hemlock, 11 – (Doreen, “Survey: 75% of U.S. consumers interested in Cuba visit”, SunSentinel, http://blogs.sunsentinel.com/south-florida-travel/2011/04/26/survey-75-of-u-s-consumers-interested-in-cuba-visit/)//AB
Would you consider a trip to Cuba if restrictions on U.S. travel to the island were lifted?
A U.S. consumer survey
released Tuesday found that 75 percent of respondents would visit or at least consider a trip
to Cuba, if Americans were allowed to travel freely there. Another 1.7 percent said they’d already traveled to
Cuba, according to the survey of 953 consumers conducted by the Travel Leaders travel agency network from March 10 to April 10
across the United States. The
survey comes as the Obama administration issues new rules that make
it easier for U.S. religious groups and educational groups to travel to Cuba with U.S.
government approval. Most Americans are effectively barred from travel to the island under Washington’s nearly 50-year
embargo on Cuba. “Culturally and historically, Cuba fascinates a large number of Americans. Physically, it’s
amazingly close to the Florida coast, yet so far away because of continued restrictions for most citizens,” stated Roger E. Block,
president of Travel Leaders Franchise Group in a statement. “Like the traveling public, our Travel
Leaders experts would
welcome the opportunity to experience the country for themselves – the food, the music, the
architecture, the beaches and the people – and then assist their clients in realizing a trip of their own to this forbidden destination
that has been off-limits for nearly a half century,” he said.
Travel to Cuba low now – travel restrictions and economies prevent
CBS Miami, 6/17 – News organization that specializes in South Floridian and Cuban affairs. (CBS Miami, “Cuba Tourism
Cooling Down Or Just Heating Up?,” 6/17/13, http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/06/17/cuba-tourism-cooling-down-or-just-heatingup/, IS)
MIAMI (CBS4) — It appears
tourism is down in Cuba as fewer visitors from the United States and
the country according to Cuba’s National Statistic Office (ONE).¶ CBS4 News partner The Miami
Herald, helped break down the numbers from ONE and reports nearly a 5 percent drop in April of 2013
compared to the same month in 2012.¶ While the country saw the drop in visitors, the money generated from
tourism apparently did not change with a total of $655 million in the first quarter of 2013.¶ According to tourism experts, the lack
of a change in income is likely a result of Cuba moving away from the attraction of low-cost,
all-inclusive beach resorts and targeting wealthier tourists while also raising prices .¶ For example,
southern Europe visit
editor of the Tampa-based Cuba Standard, Johannes Werner, says the already upscale Paradisus Hotel in the Varadero Beach resort,
is adding a “Royal Service” category that includes limited-access pools and junior suite. “Obviously, the intent is to draw in bigger
spenders.”¶ ONE’s numbers show tourist arrivals decreased from 288,000 in April of 2012 to 274,000 in April 2013. The drop
amounts to 4.9 percent. In addition to a decrease in visitors during the month of April, Cuba saw a 1.4 percent decrease in visitors
for the first four months of this year with a total of 1.2 million people visiting the island this year.¶ The numbers were also broken
down to show the countries with the most visitors. Out of 18 countries, the three at the top of the list were Canada with a 1.3
percent increase, the United Kingdom with 8.1 percent and Germany with an 11.8 percent increase in tourists to Cuba.¶ However,
according to the ONE report, the number of visitors from Spain dropped significantly from 6,359 to 3,384 or 29.5 percent from April
to April.¶ Also, ONE reports Italian visitors dropped by 7.2 percent and visitors from France went down by 6.8 percent.¶ The
biggest plunge in visitors is in a category ONE that lumps together the United States and all
“other” countries with roughly less than 2,000 tourists.¶ Those numbers show a 13.4 percent
drop from 63,248 in April 2012 to 54,771 in April of 2013.¶ According to ONE, arrivals from “other” countries decreased from
258,378 in the first quarter of 2012 to 243,782 in the same period of 2013.¶ Some experts say the drop in visitors to
Cuba is a direct correlation to how economies of the countries from which tourists are
coming.¶ For example, Werner believes the decrease in Spanish and Italian visitors shows the financial crisis impacting those
countries. Spain’s unemployment stands at 20 percent.¶ “This shows the continued weakness of the southern European markets,
which have been historically strong sources of tourists for Cuba,” Werner said.¶ Werner speculates the decrease in United States
tourists is because of the initial wave of interest in travel to Cuba after the Obama administration began easing travel restrictions in
2008 “has flattened out a bit.”¶ In February, El Nuevo Herald reported travel industry officials in Miami said only 45 charter flights to
the island were scheduled for March, compared to 60 in September.¶ Although ONE does not report the number of arrivals by
Cuban Americans or other U.S. residents on especially licensed “people-to-people” trips — tourism is illegal — the total of those
categories was estimated at 440,000 in 2011.¶ In addition to the number of people visiting Cuba, ONE’s report included hotel
occupancy, which saw a decrease from 65.7 percent in the first quarter of 2012 to 63.7 percent in the same period of 2013.¶ Experts
expect to see the numbers adjust in the coming years as Cuba works to draw a new, higher-dollar crowd, and the country adds new
golf resorts and marinas.¶ (©2013 CBS Local Media, a division of CBS Radio Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. CBS4 news partner The Miami Herald contributed material for this report.)
Diseases
Travel and Tourism spreads disease quickly
Relman et al, 2010, (David, “Infectious Disease Movement in a Borderless World”, p. 90)//AB
Humans travel in numbers and at speeds unprecedented in history. Travelers visit remote areas as well as
major population centers. Humans may be displaced because of social, economic, or political upheavals or extreme events and
environmental disasters. The
elimination of spatial and temporal barriers, especially by long-distance air transport,
means that humans can reach almost any part of the Earth today within the incubation period
for most microbes that cause disease in humans. Travel is also discontinuous, often including many
stops and layovers along the way. This means that travelers are part of the dynamic global process of moving
biota, along with trade, which moves plants, animals, and other materials. Natural movement of animals via migration, and
transport of seeds, microbes, and other materials via water and air currents, is the backdrop against which massive travel and trade
are occurring in today’s world. One consequence of this movement is the juxtaposition of species that have never before had
physical proximity. The contact between microbes, humans,
which may or may not be expressed in disease or death.
and animals may result in infection,
Impacts - Cholera
And, Cuba is experiencing a large cholera outbreak
Nordqvist, 1/16, (Christian, “Cuba Cholera Outbreak Confirmed By Authorities”, Medical News Today, 1/16/13,
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/255016.php)//AB
Cuban authorities have confirmed that people have become infected with cholera in the
country's capital, Havana. The Health Ministry says it is the largest outbreak of cholera in over 40 years. In an official
communiqué, the Cuban government announced that health workers had reported a significant increase in the
number of acute diarrhea cases in some parts of the city. Many of these cases were found to be among people
with cholera. The Health Ministry says it has identified the source - an asymptomatic food vendor who had become infected in
eastern Cuba during a previous outbreak of cholera. Asymptomatic means showing no symptoms. According to official Cuban media,
health care professionals have been visiting dwellings door-to-door in Havana, checking for signs
and symptoms of the disease in an attempt to stop its spread. According to the BBC, a 46-year-old man died
of probable cholera at the beginning of this month. There has been a considerable rise in the number of diarrhea cases in Havana.
Restaurants and cafes have been closed in the center of the capital, where authorities have only allowed sealed foods and drinks to
continue to be sold. According to Cuba's National Center for Medical Sciences Information (Centro Nacional de Información de
Ciencias Médicas), since Sunday January 6th, authorities detected an increase in acute diarrhea cases in the municipalities of Cerro
(part of Havana) and then later in other parts of the city. Some of these patients had signs and symptoms that pointed etiologically
to suspected cholera. This triggered the activation of the state's anti-cholera program.
Empirics prove- travel links to cholera in the US
Newton et al, 11
[Anna Newton, “Cholera in United States Associated with Epidemic in Hispaniola”, CDC,
November 2011, http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/17/11/11-0808_article.htm, accessed
7/2/13]
Six months after the Hispaniola cholera epidemic started in Haiti, 23 associated cases were
recognized in the United States. All cases were associated with recent travel to Hispaniola or
with consumption of seafood from Haiti. The risk for cholera transmission in the United States is low because of improved water and
sanitation, and there is no evidence of secondary transmission. Florida, New York, and Massachusetts have the highest populations
of persons of Haitian or Dominican ancestry (6). Most cases were reported from Florida, the state with the largest Haitian
Travel between the
United States and Haiti is straightforward; 4 US airports offer daily direct flights from Florida and New York to Portpopulation. However, case-patients also resided in states with small Haitian and Dominican populations.
au-Prince. Many persons, including many of Haitian descent, traveled from the United States to Haiti to help with the response to
the January 2010 earthquake in Port-au-Prince.
Person-to-person transmission of cholera has only rarely been reported; cases in medical workers are almost always attributable to
consumption of contaminated food or water. Person-to-person transmission is not clearly supported for either of the cases we
report in medical workers, although it cannot be ruled out. Continued surveillance and detailed investigation of cases in medical
workers is warranted to further define the risk, if any, of person-to-person transmission.
Echoing the Latin American cholera epidemic in the 1990s, the number of US cholera cases has increased after the cholera epidemic
in Hispaniola. Travelers to cholera-affected areas should be aware of the risk and should follow prevention measures to avoid
infection. In particular, travelers visiting friends or relatives may be at higher risk for travel-associated infection (7). Few casepatients had received cholera prevention education (educational materials available at www.cdc.gov/cholera/index.html);
no
cholera vaccine is licensed in the United States. Until cholera in Haiti and Dominican Republic resolves, clinicians,
microbiologists, and public health workers in the United States should be prepared for more cases in travelers returning from
Hispaniola.
Cholera spreading into the U.S would cause it to spread worldwide, causing
extinction
WHI, 12 (“Cholera”, World Health Organization, 6/12, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs107/en/)//AB
Cholera transmission is closely linked to inadequate environmental management. Typical at-risk areas include peri-urban slums,
where basic infrastructure is not available, as well as camps for internally displaced people or refugees, where minimum
requirements of clean water and sanitation are not met. The
consequences of a disaster – such as disruption of water
– can increase the risk
of cholera transmission should the bacteria be present or introduced. Epidemics have never arisen from
dead bodies. Cholera remains a global threat to public health and a key indicator of lack of social
development. Recently, the re-emergence of cholera has been noted in parallel with the everincreasing size of vulnerable populations living in unsanitary conditions. The number of cholera cases
and sanitation systems, or the displacement of populations to inadequate and overcrowded camps
reported to WHO continues to rise. For 2011 alone, a total of 589 854 cases were notified from 58 countries, including 7816 deaths.
Many more cases were unaccounted for due to limitations in surveillance systems and fear of trade and travel sanctions. The true
burden of the disease is estimated to be 3–5 million cases and 100 000–120 000 deaths annually.
Impacts – Extinction (Dis Gen)
Unchecked diseases cause extinction
Bolker '05 (Benjamin Bolker- Ph.D. Cambridge University, 1993 have worked on several other disease systems including a large
collaborative project to understand the dynamics of two pathogens, iridoviruses and chytrid fungi, in a range of amphibian
communities around the world)
The list of adjectives qualifying disease models above –deterministic, density-dependent, specialist – suggests the mechanisms that
allow diseases to drive their hosts extinct in models.
Disease can drive populations temporarily or
permanently to low numbers or densities, predisposing them to extinction by demographic
stochasticity or Allee effects; diseases with frequency-dependent or spatial transmission can remain at high incidence
even when populations have become globally rare; and diseases that can exploit other
hosts(biotic reservoirs) or survive and grow in the environment (abiotic reservoirs) can remain at high
incidence independent of population crashes in the focal host.
Impacts – Extinction (AIDS Mutation)
AIDS spread and mutations will cause extinction
Lederberg 91
(Joshua Lederberg, Molecular biologist and Nobel Prize winner in 1958, 1991
In Time of Plague: The History and Social Consequences of Lethal Epidemic Disease, p 35-6)
Will Aids mutate further ? Already known, a vexing feature of AIDS is its antigenic variability, further complicating the task of
HIV is still evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far more
HIV on earth today than ever before in history. What are the odds of its learning the tricks of airborne
transmission? The short is, “No one can be sure.” But we could make the same attribution about any virus;
alternatively the next influenza or chicken pox may mutate to an unprecedented lethality. As
developing a vaccine. So we know that
time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is momentary reassurance in itself. However, given its other ugly
it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS. No
rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia
multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analogue to the emergence of pneumonic plague.
attributes,
Trafficking
Opening trade with the U.S causes more sex trafficking into the country
Cribb 3/17, (Robert, “U.S. child-sex tourism to Cuba hardly exists”, Miami Herald, 3/17/13,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/17/3291012/us-child-sex-tourism-to-cuba-hardly.html)//AB
An odd combination of Washington’s
trade embargo on Cuba and tough U.S. laws on sex tourism has kept down
the number of U.S. travelers who fly to the island to abuse underage girls and boys. U.S.
residents account for an estimated — and chilling — 25 percent of child-sex tourism worldwide,
said Miami-based FBI Special Agent Heather Armstrong, a member of the Crimes against Children Squad. About onequarter of the child-sex tourists in Cambodia surveyed about 10 years ago were from the United States and Canada, said Carol
Smolenski, head of the U.S. branch of the global monitoring group End Child Prostitution and Trafficking.
Increasing tourism increases sex trafficking
Enos, 11 (Olivia, “Shame on Cuba: Blind Eye to Human Trafficking”, The Foundry, http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/06/shameon-cuba-blind-eye-to-human-trafficking/)//AB
Cuba’s placement on Tier 3 is both warranted and necessary. Because prostitution is not criminalized for anyone over the age of 16,
it is difficult to track child prostitution in Cuba. Economic malfeasance in Cuba has forced many young women into
the sex-for-sale industry. Cuba’s tourism industry generated around $2 billion just in the past year, and illicit sex is a
burgeoning part of the tourism industry profile. In fact, it has been suggested that the Cuban government even
encourages sex tourism as a source for foreign cash that keeps the communist regime afloat. Fidel and Raul Castro have turned a
blind eye to sex tourism and human trafficking. One of Fidel Castro’s flippant brush-offs included the following: “There are no
women forced to sell themselves to a man, to a foreigner, to a tourist…Those who do so do it on their own, voluntarily and without
any need for it. We can say that they are highly educated hookers and quite healthy…” Such cynical views have landed Cuba a spot
on Tier 3. Cuba’s
blind eye toward sex tourism and human trafficking appears contradictory in a
society where the state regulates virtually everything else.
Venezuela, home to Castro ally Hugo Chávez, also experiences high levels of trafficking, where of the 40,000 to 50,000 sex trafficked
children, 78 percent are girls between the ages of 8 and 17. Venezuela’s placement on Tier 3 is the result of a failure to enforce
existing trafficking laws or enact new anti-trafficking legislation. Despite the large number of youth affected by human trafficking,
Cuba and Venezuela continue to turn a blind eye to an age-old problem. It is striking how far these anti-American regimes will go to
defy the U.S. in its efforts to eliminate the vestiges of modern-day slavery.
Challenge this domination and objectification whenever possible
Amy Ray, 1997, (The American University Law Review, February 1997, Lexis)
Because, as currently constructed, human rights laws can reach only individual perpetrators during times of war, one alternative is
When it is universally true
that no matter where in the world a woman lives or with what culture she identifies, she is at grave risk of
being beaten, imprisoned, enslaved, raped, prostituted, physi-cally tortured, and murdered simply because she is a woman,
the term "peace" does not describe her existence. n265 In addition to being persecuted for being a woman, many women also are
to recon-sider our understanding of what constitutes "war" and what constitutes "peace."
n264
persecuted on ethnic, racial, religious, sexual orientation, or other grounds. Therefore, it is crucial that our re-conceptualization of [*837] human rights is not limited to
violations based on gender. n266 Rather, our definitions of "war"
and "peace" in the context of all of the world's persecuted groups should be
questioned. Nevertheless, in every culture a common risk fac-tor is being a woman, and to
describe the conditions of our lives as
"peace" is to deny the effect of sexual terrorism on all women. n267 Because we are socialized to think of
times of "war" as limited to groups of men fighting over physical territory or land, we do not immediately consider the possibility of
"war" outside this narrow definition except in a metaphorical sense, such as in the expression "the war against poverty." However,
the physical violence and sex discrimination per-petrated against women because we are women is hardly metaphorical. Despite the
fact that its prevalence makes the violence seem natural or inevitable, it is profoundly political in both its purpose and its effect.
n268 The
appropriation of women's sexuality and women's bodies as representative of men's ownership
over women has been central to this "politically constructed reality." n269 Women's bodies have
become the objects through which dominance and even ownership are communicated, as well as
Further, its exclusion from international human rights law is no accident, but rather part of a system politically constructed to exclude and silence women.
the objects through which men's honor is attained or taken away in many cultures. n270 Thus, when a man wants to communicate
that he is more powerful than a woman, he may beat her. When a man wants to communicate that a woman is [*838] his to use as
he pleases, he may rape her or prosti-tute her. The objectification of women is so universal that when one country ruled by men
(Serbia) wants to communi-cate to another country ruled by men (Bosnia-Herzegovina or Croatia) that it is superior and more
powerful, it rapes, tortures, and prostitutes the "inferior" country's women. n271 The use of the possessive is intentional, for
communica-tion among men through the abuse of women is effective only to the extent that the group of men to whom the
message is sent believes they have some right of possession over the bodies of the women used. Unless they have some claim of
right to what is taken, no injury is experienced. Of course, regardless of whether a group of men sexually terrorizing a group of
the universal sexual victimization of women
clearly communicates to all women a message of dominance and ownership over women. As Charlotte
women is trying to communicate a message to another group of men,
n272 Given the emphasis on invasion of
physical territory as the impetus of war between nations or groups of people within one nation, we may be able to reconceive the
notion of "war" in order to make human rights laws applicable to women "in the by-ways of daily life." n273 We could eradicate the
Bunch explains, "The physical territory of [the] political struggle [over female subordination] is women's bodies."
traditional public/private dichotomy and define oppression of women in terms traditionally recognized by human rights laws by arguing that women's bodies are the physical
territory at issue in a war perpetrated by men against women. Under this broader definition of "war,"
any time one group of people systematically
uses physical coercion and violence to subordinate another group, that group would be perpetrating a war and could be prosecuted
for human rights violations under war crimes statutes. n274 Such an understanding would enable women to seek the prosecution of any male perpetrator of
violence against women, regard-less of [*839] whether that violence occurred inside a bedroom, on the streets of the city, or in a concentra-tion camp in a foreign country.
Sex trafficking causes diseases and hurts ones mental health
UNICEF ’04 (United Nations Children's Fund (or UNICEF; pronounced was created by the United Nations General Assembly on
December 11, 1946, to provide emergency food and healthcare to children in countries that had been devastated
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/00pr05.htm)
NICEF's experience in these and other countries in Asia has shown that the
effects of sexual exploitation on children
are profound and may be permanent. Normal sexual, physical and emotional development is stunted.
Self-esteem and confidence are undermined. Sexually exploited children are especially vulnerable
to the effects of physical and verbal violence, drugs and sexually transmitted diseases. Bellamy said
there were no simple solutions. Societies must recognize that the root causes of trafficking often lie in discrimination against
minorities, unequal treatment of women and girl-children, and economic policies which fail to ensure universal access to education
and legal protection
Travel Unsafe
Travel in Cuba is still risky- violent demonstrations and detainments
Bureau of Consular Affairs, March 11, 2013, department of the US federal
government [Bureau of Consular Affairs, Cuba Specific Country Information,
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html, 6/25/13]
The security environment in Cuba is relatively stable and characterized by a strong military and police presence throughout the
country. Demonstrations against the United States are less frequent and smaller than in past years, are always approved and
monitored by the Cuban Government, and have been peaceful in nature. The same cannot be said about state-organized
demonstrations against domestic opposition groups, which can be violent. American citizens
should avoid all demonstrations. Hijackings of vessels to depart Cuba are much less common. The United States
Government has publicly and repeatedly announced that any person who hijacks (or attempts to hijack) an aircraft or vessel
(whether common carrier or other) will face the maximum penalties pursuant to U.S. law, regardless of that person's nationality.
In recent years, the Cuban government has detained U.S. citizens it suspects of engaging in
activities perceived to undermine state security. In 2011, it sentenced one such U.S. citizen to
a lengthy prison sentence on arbitrary charges after a two day show trial. U.S. citizens
traveling to Cuba should be aware that the Cuban Government may detain anyone at anytime
for any purpose and should not expect that Cuba’s state security or judicial systems will carry
out their responsibilities according to international norms.
Natives Turn
And tourism is uniquely bad for natives – a laundry list of reasons.
United Nations Environment Programme 12 - the voice for the environment in the united nations
system. Evidence based off of a ten year study of tourism in new areas. (“Negative Socio-Cultural Impacts From Tourism: Change or
loss of indigenous identity and values,” published in 2012,
http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/Business/SectoralActivities/Tourism/FactsandFiguresaboutTourism/ImpactsofTourism/Soc
io-CulturalImpacts/NegativeSocio-CulturalImpactsFromTourism/tabid/78781/Default.aspx, accessed 6/25/13, IS)
Tourism can cause change or loss of local identity and values, brought about by several closely
related influences:¶ Commodification¶ Tourism can turn local cultures into commodities when
religious rituals, traditional ethnic rites and festivals are reduced and sanitized to conform to
tourist expectations, resulting in what has been called "reconstructed ethnicity." Once a destination
is sold as a tourism product, and the tourism demand for souvenirs, arts, entertainment and other commodities begins to exert
influence, basic changes in human values may occur. Sacred sites and objects may not be respected when they are perceived as
goods to trade. ¶ Standardization¶ Destinations
risk standardization in the process of satisfying tourists'
desires for familiar facilities. While landscape, accommodation, food and drinks, etc., must meet the tourists' desire for
the new and unfamiliar, they must at the same time not be too new or strange because few tourists are actually looking for
completely new things. Tourists often look for recognizable facilities in an unfamiliar environment, like well-known fast-food
restaurants and hotel chains.¶ Loss of authenticity and staged authenticity¶ Adapting
cultural expressions and
manifestations to the tastes of tourists or even performing shows as if they were "real life"
constitutes "staged authenticity". As long as tourists just want a glimpse of the local
atmosphere, a quick glance at local life, without any knowledge or even interest, staging will
be inevitable.¶ Adaptation to tourist demands¶ Tourists want souvenirs, arts, crafts, and cultural manifestations, and in many
tourist destinations, craftsmen have responded to the growing demand, and have made changes in design of their products to bring
them more in line with the new customers' tastes. While the interest shown by tourists also contributes to the sense of self-worth of
the artists, and helps conserve a cultural tradition, cultural
erosion may occur due to the commodification of
cultural goods. ¶ Creating molas, which are the blouses worn by Kuna women in Colombia, is an art that began with designs
that reflected the conception of the world, of nature, and of the spiritual life of the Kuna Nation. Now it is increasingly being
transformed, through tourism, into a commercial trade which causes loss of its spiritual value and quality. This is changing the
designs of the molas to correspond to the interests of the tourists, while at the same time the Kuna women are losing their
knowledge of the old designs and the interpretations and meanings of the mola designs.¶ Source: Eco-index¶ Culture clashes¶
Because tourism involves movement of people to different geographical locations, and establishment of social relations between
people who would otherwise not meet, cultural
clashes can take place as a result of differences in
cultures, ethnic and religious groups, values and lifestyles, languages, and levels of
prosperity.¶ The result can be an overexploitation of the social carrying capacity (limits of acceptable
change in the social system inside or around the destination) and cultural carrying capacity (limits of acceptable change
in the culture of the host population) of the local community.¶ The attitude of local residents towards tourism development may
unfold through the stages of euphoria, where visitors are very welcome, through apathy, irritation and potentially antagonism, when
anti-tourist attitudes begin growing among local people.¶ Cultural clashes may further arise through:¶ Economic inequality¶ Many
tourists come from societies with different consumption patterns and lifestyles than what is current at the destination, seeking
pleasure, spending large amounts of money and sometimes behaving in ways that even they would not accept at home. One effect
is that local people that come in contact with these tourists may develop a sort of copying behavior, as they want to live and behave
in the same way. Especially in
less developed countries, there is likely to be a growing distinction
between the 'haves' and 'have-nots', which may increase social and sometimes ethnic
tensions. In resorts in destination countries such as Jamaica, Indonesia or Brazil, tourism employees with average yearly salaries
of US$ 1,200 to 3,000 spend their working hours in close contact with guests whose yearly income is well over US$ 80,000.¶
Irritation due to tourist behavior¶ Tourists
often, out of ignorance or carelessness, fail to respect local customs
and moral values. When they do, they can bring about irritation and stereotyping. They take a quick snapshot and are gone,
and by so acting invade the local peoples' lives.¶ In many Muslim countries, strict standards exist regarding the appearance and
behaviour of Muslim women, who must carefully cover themselves in public. Tourists in these countries often disregard or are
unaware of these standards, ignoring the prevalent dress code, appearing half-dressed (by local standards) in revealing shorts, skirts
or even bikinis, sunbathing topless at the beach or consuming large quantities of alcohol openly. Besides creating ill-will, this kind of
behavior can be an incentive for locals not to respect their own traditions and religion anymore, leading to tensions within the local
community. The same types of culture clashes happen in conservative Christian communities in Polynesia, the Caribbean and the
Mediterranean.¶ Job level friction¶ In developing countries especially, many jobs occupied by local people in the tourist industry are
at a lower level, such as housemaids, waiters, gardeners and other practical work, while higher-paying and more prestigious
managerial jobs go to foreigners or "urbanized" nationals. Due to a lack of professional training, as well as to the influence of hotel
or restaurant chains at the destination, people with the know-how needed to perform higher level jobs are often attracted from
other countries. This may cause friction and irritation and increases the gap between the cultures. ¶
Even in cases where
tourism "works", in the sense that it improves local economies and the earning power of
local individuals, it cannot solve all local social or economic problems.
Sometimes it substitutes new
problems for old ones.¶ Income Inequality in Taman Negara National Park, Malaysia¶ In Western Malaysia, the Taman Negara
National Park is a privately owned park and resort which can house 260 visitors at a time. The park employs 270 people and 60% of
the staff in the administrative headquarters are locals. In 1999 these local staff earned about US$ 120 a month; for comparison,
Malaysians living off the land at that time were earning on average about US$ 40 a month.¶ Despite the positive effects of increased
park employment, the difference in income between the two local groups has led to social tension and driven up boat fares and the
cost of everyday goods. Little of
the tourism money generated by the park stays in Malaysia, and
park employees spend almost 90% of their income outside the region or on imported goods.
Thus local inhabitants, whose culture has been marketed to attract tourists, benefit only to a very limited extent. Indeed, many have
taken to illegal hunting and fishing in the park, contrary to its protective regulations. ¶ Source: ILO report on human resources
development, employment and globalization in the hotel, catering and tourism sector, 2001¶ Physical influences causing social
stress¶ The physical influences that the increasing tourism flow, and its consequent developments, have on a destination can cause
severe social stress as it impacts the local community. Socio-cultural disadvantages evolve from:¶ Resource use conflicts, such as
competition between tourism and local populations for the use of prime resources like water and energy because of scarce supply.
Stress to local communities can also result from environmental degradation and increased infrastructure costs for the local
community - for example, higher taxes to pay for improvements to the water supply or sanitation facilities. ¶ Cultural deterioration.
Damage to cultural resources may arise from vandalism, littering, pilferage and illegal removal
of cultural heritage items. A common problem at archaeological sites in countries such as Egypt, Colombia, Mexico and
Peru is that poorly paid guards supplement their income by selling artifacts to tourists. Furthermore,
degradation of cultural sites may occur when historic sites and buildings are unprotected and
the traditionally built environment is replaced or virtually disappears. ¶ Conflicts with traditional land-uses, especially in intensely
exploited areas such as coastal zones, which are popular for their beaches and islands. Conflicts arise when the choice has to be
made between development of the land for tourist facilities or infrastructure and local traditional land-use. The indigenous
population of such destinations is frequently the loser in the contest for these resources as the economic value which tourism brings
often counts for more.¶ As an example of how local people can suffer from tourism development, in coastal areas construction of
shoreline hotels and tourist faculties often cuts off access for the locals to traditional fishing ground and even recreational use of the
areas.¶ Depriving local people of access ¶ There are numerous examples where local residents have lost access to local natural
resources because of tourism development. On Boracay Island in the Philippines, one quarter of the island has been bought by
outside corporations, generating a crisis in water supply and only limited infrastructure benefits for residents. Similarly, in Bali,
Indonesia, prime agricultural land and water supplies have been diverted for large hotels and golf courses, while at Pangandaran
(Java, Indonesia), village beach land, traditionally used for grazing, repairing boats and nets, and festivals, was sold to entrepreneurs
for construction of a five-star hotel (Shah, 2000). ¶ Source: Overseas Development Institute¶ Ethical issues¶ Partly due to the above
impacts, tourism can create more serious situations where ethical and even criminal issues are involved.¶ Crime generation¶
Crime rates typically increase with the growth and urbanization of an area, and growth of
mass tourism is often accompanied by increased crime. The presence of a large number of tourists with a lot
of money to spend, and often carrying valuables such as cameras and jewelry, increases the attraction for criminals and brings with
it activities like robbery and drug dealing. Repression of these phenomena often exacerbates social tension. In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
tourists staying in beachside five star resorts close to extremely poor communities in hillside "favelas" (shantytowns) are at risk of
pickpockets and stick-ups. Security agents, often armed with machine guns, stand guard nearby in full sight, and face aggressive
reactions from locals who are often their neighbors when they go home. Tourism can also drive the development of gambling, which
may cause negative changes in social behavior. ¶ Child labour¶ ILO studies show that many
jobs in the tourism sector
have working and employment conditions that leave much to be desired: long hours, unstable
employment, low pay, little training and poor chances for qualification. In addition, recent
developments in the travel and tourism trade (liberalization, competition, concentration, drop in travel fares, growth of
subcontracting) and introduction of new technologies seem to reinforce the trend towards more precarious, flexible employment
conditions. For many such jobs young children are recruited, as they are cheap and flexible employees.¶ An estimated 13-19 million
children and young people below 18 years of age (10-15 per cent of all employees in tourism) are employed in the industry
worldwide. However, these figures take no account of the number of children working in the informal sector in ancillary activities.¶
Child labour in tourism is common in both developing and in developed countries. Many boys and
girls below 12 years of age are engaged in small business activities related to hotels and restaurants, the entertainment sector or the
souvenir trade, often as porters or street or beach vendors. They are frequently subjected to harsh working and employment
conditions. ¶ Source: ILO¶ For more information on child labour in the tourism industry, see Quick Money - Easy Money? A Report on
Child Labour in Tourism by Christine Plüss.¶ Prostitution and sex tourism¶ The
commercial sexual exploitation of
children and young women has paralleled the growth of tourism in many parts of the world.
Though tourism is not the cause of sexual exploitation, it provides easy access to it. Tourism also brings consumerism to many parts
of the world previously denied access to luxury commodities and services. The lure of this easy money has caused many young
people, including children, to trade their bodies in exchange for T-shirts, personal stereos, bikes and even air tickets out of the
country. In other situations children are trafficked into the brothels on the margins of the tourist areas and sold into sex slavery, very
rarely earning enough money to escape. ¶ The United Nations has defined child sex tourism as "tourism organized with the primary
purpose of facilitating the effecting of a commercial sexual relationship with a child". Certain
tourism destinations have
become centers for this illegal trade, frequented by paedophiles and supported by networks
of pimps, taxi drivers, hotel staff, brothel owners, entertainment establishments, and tour operators who
organize package sex tours. At the international level, there are agents who provide information about particular resorts where such
practices are commonplace. (See the ILO report on Human resources development, employment and globalization in the hotel,
catering and tourism sector.)¶
***ENVIRONMENT TURN***
1NC
U.S travel destroys Cuban environment
Bovee, 13 – (Michelle, “Tourism in Cuba?”, policymic, 3/27/13, http://notenoughgood.com/2013/03/tourism-in-cuba/)//AB
There are downsides, though, to increasing tourism in Cuba. The environment, for one, could suffer
greatly from an influx of foreign tourists. Cuba’s strict laws prevent even locals from entering some
areas, thus keeping them pristine and beautiful. A tourist boom–which seems inevitable if the US were to
drop the travel embargo–would encourage the Cuban government to ease restrictions to allow
travelers access to these natural paradises, which would then, of course, not be pristine
paradises any longer. Additionally, as some have already noted, the increase in tourism just in the last 10 years has
“prettified” some of the traditional Cuban landmarks, like the once-scruffy Dos Hermanos bar where Hemmingway reportedly drank.
The Cuban Ministry of Tourism would have to work hard to ensure that Cuba retains the mystery and
natural beauty that makes tourists so eager to visit, or else the tourism would not be
sustainable. Once the draw of visiting a formerly forbidden country wears off, the cultural heritage sites and beautiful
beaches must be enough to encourage future tourism.
Plan will collapse coral reefs
Boom 12, (Brian M. Boom is the director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program and Bassett Maguire Curator of
Botany at the New York Botanical Garden, 8/14/2012, “Biodiversity without Borders”, Science and Diplomacy,
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders)
These ecosystems are threatened increasingly by habitat modification, the impact of tourism,
overexploitation of marine fishes and other commercial seafood resources, the ramifications of climate change and rising sea levels,
and pollution from land-based sources (e.g., unsustainable agricultural and forestry practices) and ocean-based
sources (e.g., cruise ship waste). Increasing tourism especially threatens coral reefs. Despite some
positive measures taken by the cruise industry in recent years, more cruise ships in the region still mean greater
potential stresses to the marine and coastal environments. In addition to these and other shared ecosystems,
many marine and terrestrial species are shared by Cuba and the United States. Examples include migratory, invasive, endangered,
and disease vector species.
Coral reefs key to everything, economy, medicine, cancer, protecting wetlands.
NOAA 08 (NOAA, March 25th, 2008, “Importance of Coral Reefs”,
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral07_importance.html)
Coral reefs are some of the most diverse and valuable ecosystems on Earth. Coral reefs support more
species per unit area than any other marine environment, including about 4,000 species of fish, 800 species of hard corals and
hundreds of other species. Scientists estimate that there may be another 1 to 8 million undiscovered species of organisms living in
and around reefs (Reaka-Kudla, 1997). This
biodiversity is considered key to finding new medicines for the
21st century. Many drugs are now being developed from coral reef animals and plants as possible cures for cancer, arthritis,
human bacterial infections, viruses, and other diseases. Storehouses of immense biological wealth, reefs also provide economic
and environmental services to millions of people. Coral reefs may provide goods and services worth $375 billion each
year. This is an amazing figure for an environment that covers less than 1 percent of the Earth’s surface (Costanza et al., 1997). In
the 1890s, harvesting sponges was second only to cigar-making in economic importance in the Florida Keys. Nets of recently
harvested marine sponges are drying on the top of the boat's wheelhouse. Click the image for a larger vew. (photo: Scott Larosa)
Healthy reefs
contribute to local economies through tourism. Diving tours, fishing trips, hotels, restaurants, and
other businesses based near reef systems provide millions of jobs and contribute billions of dollars all over
the world. Recent studies show that millions of people visit coral reefs in the Florida Keys every year. These reefs alone are
estimated to have an asset value of $7.6 billion (Johns et al., 2001). The commercial value of U.S. fisheries from coral reefs is over
$100 million (NMFS/NOAA, 2001). In addition, the annual value of reef-dependent recreational fisheries probably exceeds $100
In developing countries, coral reefs contribute about one-quarter of the total fish catch,
providing critical food resources for tens of millions of people (Jameson et al., 1995). Coral reefs buffer adjacent
million per year.
shorelines from wave action and prevent erosion,
property damage and loss of life. Reefs also protect the
ports and harbors and the economies they support.
Globally, half a billion people are estimated to live within 100 kilometers of a coral reef and benefit from its
production and protection.
highly productive wetlands along the coast, as well as
Biodiversity loss risks extinction
Walsh 10 [Bryan, covers environment, energy and — when the need arises — particularly
alarming diseases for TIME magazine, Wildlife: A Global Convention on Biodiversity Opens in
Japan, But Can It Make a Difference? October 18, 2010
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/10/18/wildlife-a-global-convention-on-biodiversityopens-in-japan-but-can-it-make-a-difference/#ixzz131wU6CSp]
The story of non-human life on the planet Earth over the past few decades is a simple one: loss.
While there are always a few bright spots—including the recovery of threatened animals like the brown pelican, thanks to the
biodiversity is steadily marching
backwards, with extinctions rising and habitat destroyed. Species as diverse as the tiger—less than 3,500 live
in the wild today—to tiny frogs could be gone forever if the trends keep heading downwards. In a
quietly revolutionary Endangered Species Act—on a planetary scale
bitterly ironic twist, back in 2002 the United Nations declared that 2010 would be the international year of biodiversity, and
countries agreed to" achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national
level," as part of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). At this paper in Science shows (download a PDF here),
however, the world has utterly failed to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss, and by just about every measurement,
things
are getting worse all the time. (Read the Global Biodiversity Outlook if you really want to be depressed.) With
that cheery backdrop, representatives from nearly 200 nations are meeting in the Japanese city of Nagoya—home to Toyota
and not a whole lot else—for the 10th summit of the CBD, where they will set new goals for reducing species loss and slowing
habitat destruction. At the very least, they should know how critical the biodiversity challenge is—as Japanese Environment
All life on Earth exists thanks to the benefits from
biodiversity in the forms of fertile soil, clear water and clean air. We are now close to a 'tipping point' - that is, we are
about to reach a threshold beyond which biodiversity loss will become irreversible, and
may cross that threshold in the next 10 years if we do not make proactive efforts for conserving
biodiversity. Ahmed Djoghlaf, the executive secretary of the CBD, struck an even darker note, reminding
diplomats that they were on a clock—and time was running out: Let's have the courage to look in
Minister Ryo Matsumoto said in an opening speech:
the eyes of our children and admit that we have failed, individually and collectively, to fulfil the Johannesburg promise made
by 110 heads of state to substantially reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. Let us look in the eyes of our children
and admit that we continue to lose biodiversity at an unprecedented rate, thus mortgaging their future. But what will actually
come out of the Nagoya summit, which will continue until Oct. 29? Most likely there will be another agreement—a new
protocol—outlining various global strategies on sustaining biodiversity and goals on slowing the rate of species loss. (You can
download a PDF of the discussion draft document that will be picked over at Nagoya.) It won't be hard for governments to
agree on general ambitions for reducing biodiversity loss—who's against saving pandas?—but the negotiations will be much
trickier on the question of who will actually pay for a more biodiverse planet? And much as we've seen in international
climate change negotiations, the essential divide is between the developed and developing nations—and neither side seems
ready to bend. The reality is that much of the world's biodiversity—the most fantastic species and the most complete
forests—is found in the poorer, less developed parts of the world. That's in part because the world's poor have been, well, too
poor to develop the land around them in the way rich nations have. (There was once a beautiful, undeveloped island off the
East Coast of the U.S., with wetlands and abundant forests. It was called Mannahatta. It's a little different now.) As a result,
the rural poor—especially in tropical nations—are directly dependent on healthy wildlife and plants in a way that inhabitants
of developed nations aren't. So on one hand that makes the poor directly vulnerable when species are lost and forests are
chopped down—which often results in migration to thronging urban areas. But on the other, poverty often drives the rural
poor to slash-and-burn forests for agriculture, or hunt endangered species to sell for bush meat. Conservation and
development have to go hand in hand. That hasn't always been the mantra of the conservation movement—as Rebecca
Tuhus-Dubrow writes in Slate, conservation projects in the past sometimes displaced the human inhabitants over a reserve or
park, privileging nature over people. But that's changed in recent decades—environmental groups like Conservation
International or the Nature Conservancy now spend as much of their time working on development as they do in protecting
nature. "Save the people, save the wildlife"—that's the new mantra. The missing ingredient is money—and that's what will be
up for debate at Nagoya. As climate change has risen on the international agenda, funding for biodiversity has lagged—the 33
member nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) donated $8.5 billion for climate
change mitigation projects in 2008, but just $3 billion annually for biodiversity. One way to change that could be through
"payment for ecosystem services." A
biodiverse landscape, intact forests, clean water and air—all of these ebbing
vital for our economies as well. (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity,
a UN-funded study, estimates that nature degradation costs the world $2 trillion to $5 trillion a year,
qualities of a healthy world are
with the poorest nations bearing the brunt of the loss.) Rich countries could pay more biodiverse developing nations to keep
nature running—allowing poorer countries to capitalize on their natural resources without slashing and burning. Will that
work? I'm skeptical—the experience of climate change negotiations have shown that the nations of the world are great at
high ideals and fuzzy goals, but not so hot at actually dividing up the pie in a more sustainable fashion. That doesn't mean
there aren't smaller solutions—like Costa Rica's just-announced debt-for-nature deal—but a big bang from Japan this month
doesn't seem too likely. The problem is as simple as it is unsolvable, at least so far—there's no clear path to national
development so far that doesn't take from the natural world. That worked for rich nations, but we're rapidly running out of
planet, as a report last week from the World Wildlife Fund showed. And there's something greater at stake as well, as the
naturalist E.O. Wilson once put it: The
one process now going on that will take millions of years to
correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats-this is the
folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us. We're losing nature. And that loss really is forever.
Ext. Tourism Harms environment
Tourism kills destinations – environment and society are at risk.
Pumphrey ’10 - Manuscript Curator at Utah State University. (Clint, “Can tourism kill a
destination?” July 13, http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/tourism-killdestination1.htm/printable) //DK
Can tourism kill a destination?¶ Whether you travel to the mountains, the beach or a theme park, vacations are a time to relax and
take a break from the daily grind. Individually, these excursions can hardly be considered harmful. After all, experiencing a national
park by car or touring a historic site alone causes few noticeable negative effects. It's the cumulative
effects of many
pleasure trips -- more than 1.4 billion in the United States in 2001 -- that damage or disrupt many tourist
destinations.¶ Tourism, as an industry, does offer some significant economic benefits. In 2008, Americans spent a total of $767
billion on tourism-related costs like hotels, air travel, food and shopping. This spending funneled down into individual communities
in the form of income for business owners and sales tax revenue for state and local governments. For example, Gatlinburg, Tenn., a
tourist town in the Appalachian Mountains with just 4,000 permanent residents, brought in almost $12 million in taxes during the
2008 to 2009 fiscal year. Tourism also creates jobs. Hotel staff, airline pilots, souvenir vendors and other tourism-related jobs totaled
5.9 million in 2008. For these reasons, economically depressed towns suffering from a loss of industry or population often try to
attract tourists to stop or even stay in their communities.¶ While these economic benefits are impressive, there are reasons why
scholars have called tourism a "devil's bargain." Tourism either poses
a threat to the natural or man-made
environment, or it poses a threat to the local culture and society (and sometimes it does both). Vacation
destinations are unique in that they must try to accommodate a large number of tourists without disturbing the setting to which the
tourists are attracted. Places as varied as Yellowstone National Park and the Great Wall of China must contend with this dilemma -allowing as many people as possible to experience the sights without disturbing habitat or desecrating ancient architecture.
Similarly, the communities
that attract tourists are altered. Longtime citizens may not recognize
their hometown once tourist development takes hold.¶ On the next page, we'll take a look at how tourism can
hurt the destination's environment.¶ Tourism has become increasingly popular over the last century as more and more people have
gained access to car travel, air travel and vacation time from work. One draw for tourists is the world's natural wonders, which are
appealing for their scenery and wild, unspoiled beauty. Do you see a paradox for these areas? They must balance visitation and
development with environmental preservation. Man-made tourist destinations -- iconic structures of immense cultural or
architectural importance -- face similar challenges. The volume of visitors must be controlled because ancient walls and sculptures
are often extraordinarily fragile and particularly prone to vandalism.¶ If left to their own devices,
tourists can often be
very destructive. Yellowstone National Park is perhaps the best example of such unfortunate behavior. Problems began soon
after President Ulysses S. Grant created the park in 1872. Companies cut timber, killed wildlife, farmed the land and even
rechanneled some of the hot springs. Tourists
carved their names into rocks and trees, broke off pieces
of ancient formations for souvenirs, and even put laundry soap in the geysers with the mistaken belief that it would
hasten the eruption. In an effort restore order, the United States Army troops, under General Philip Sheridan, occupied the park in
1886 and stayed for three decades. Today, the park operates under a very strict set of rules as it continues to recover from decades
of uncontrolled tourism.¶ Another natural place that has experienced environmental degradation is Mount Everest, though it's less
due to ignorance than the sheer difficulty of trash disposal on the world's highest peak. A 1963 National Geographic article dubbed
Mount Everest "the highest junkyard on Earth" due to the mountain of discarded oxygen bottles, kerosene containers and climbing
gear left on its slopes. After another five decades of climbing, the trash has gotten so bad that climbers plan expeditions specifically
for trash collection. For example, in April 2010, concerned climbers began an expedition to remove 4,410 pounds (2,000 kilograms)
of garbage from the "death-zone," the dangerous region above 26,250 feet (8,000 meters).¶ Man-made wonders have also fallen
victim to overzealous tourism. One such structure is the Great Wall of China, an ancient series of fortifications 4,000 miles (6,400
kilometers) in length that are believed to be between 2,000 and 400 years old. This World Heritage Site fell victim to centuries of
deterioration from natural erosion and dismantling by local citizens, but it's the estimated 13 million tourists that threaten the onethird of the wall that remains. Tourists have removed bricks and defaced surfaces, while developers created a
Disneyland-like atmosphere around some of the wall's more popular sections.¶ Angkor Wat, a Hindu temple in Cambodia,
experienced similar problems, and those in charge responded with around-the-clock security patrols to prevent vandalism and theft.
Massive restoration efforts by organizations like the United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Apsara
(a Cambodian authority created by governmental decree in 1995), and the World Monuments Fund (WMF) saved the site -- which
hosted 321,000 visitors in 2001 -- from certain deterioration. While efforts to protect such destinations have increased over the last
decade, the threat posed by intensive tourism and overdevelopment is still very real.¶ Tourism's Effect on Communities¶ The effect
tourism has on the environment gets a great deal of attention since scenery is often what draws people to destinations in the first
place. But it's also important to recognize how tourism impacts communities and residents. Before
towns build hotels,
restaurants, gift shops and other attractions to accommodate tourists, they're often farming villages or
mining towns -- typical places with typical people. Tourism changes all that. Outside business interests buy
up land for commercial and residential developments, eventually pushing farmers, ranchers and small business owners out of a job.
New people move in, raising land value and changing the identity of the community. Locals soon find themselves living in a
hometown they don't recognize.¶ Changes in a community's identity can often be drastic. A great example of this is Aspen, Colo., a
town whose transformation was so dramatic that "Aspenization" has come to describe any uncontrolled, undesirable development.
In the early 1900s, Aspen was a mining town on the verge of extinction. But after World War II, the ski industry took hold and Swisschalet-style resorts began popping up everywhere. Today, Aspen would be virtually unrecognizable to those who lived there just 60
or 70 years ago.¶ Some sections of the Great Wall of China are undergoing similar identity changes. At Badaling, a restored section of
wall from the Ming Dynasty is almost completely overshadowed by the Western-style development that threatens to engulf it.
There, you can ride toboggans or cable cars before sitting down for lunch at KFC and coffee at Starbucks. The development at both
Aspen and Badaling are good examples of how the identity of a place can change as a result of tourism.¶ The
other harmful
effect of tourism on a community is that the cost of living can become very high. As a destination
becomes increasingly popular, more people want to live there, causing the land value to skyrocket, as was the case in Jackson Hole,
Wyo., a former agricultural town at the gateway to Teton National Park. When tourism first began to take hold in the 1960s, small
lots were selling for $12,500, a high price for the time. But by 2007, the median home price hit $1 million, and the cheapest condo
sold for an incredible $512,500. Many local residents who were priced out of their own community decided to relocate. Workers in
the town's restaurants, hotels and ski resorts, many of them earning minimum wage, also found it impossible to live in Jackson Hole.
This situation caused resentment between laborers and locals, and the newcomers to the town. Unfortunately, communities
everywhere now have to deal with these issues as the tourist industry grows around the
world.¶
Ext. Biod Loss  Extinction
Biodiversity is key to preventing extinction
Madgoluis 96 (Richard Margoluis, Biodiversity Support Program, 1996,
http://www.bsponline.org/publications/showhtml.php3?10)
Biodiversity not only provides direct benefits like food, medicine, and energy; it also affords us
a "life support system." Biodiversity is required for the recycling of essential elements,
such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. It is also responsible for mitigating pollution,
protecting watersheds, and combating soil erosion. Because biodiversity acts as a buffer
against excessive variations in weather and climate, it protects us from catastrophic events beyond
human control. The importance of biodiversity to a healthy environment has become
increasingly clear. We have learned that the future well-being of all humanity depends
on our stewardship of the Earth. When we overexploit living resources, we threaten our
own survival.
AT: Travel Now
US travel would be huge
Hemlock, 11 – (Doreen, “Survey: 75% of U.S. consumers interested in Cuba visit”, SunSentinel, http://blogs.sunsentinel.com/south-florida-travel/2011/04/26/survey-75-of-u-s-consumers-interested-in-cuba-visit/)//AB
Would you consider a trip to Cuba if restrictions on U.S. travel to the island were lifted?
A U.S. consumer survey
released Tuesday found that 75 percent of respondents would visit or at least consider a trip
to Cuba, if Americans were allowed to travel freely there. Another 1.7 percent said they’d already traveled to
Cuba, according to the survey of 953 consumers conducted by the Travel Leaders travel agency network from March 10 to April 10
across the United States. The
survey comes as the Obama administration issues new rules that make
it easier for U.S. religious groups and educational groups to travel to Cuba with U.S.
government approval. Most Americans are effectively barred from travel to the island under Washington’s nearly 50-year
embargo on Cuba. “Culturally and historically, Cuba fascinates a large number of Americans. Physically, it’s
amazingly close to the Florida coast, yet so far away because of continued restrictions for most citizens,” stated Roger E. Block,
president of Travel Leaders Franchise Group in a statement. “Like the traveling public, our Travel
Leaders experts would
welcome the opportunity to experience the country for themselves – the food, the music, the
architecture, the beaches and the people – and then assist their clients in realizing a trip of their own to this forbidden destination
that has been off-limits for nearly a half century,” he said.
Tourism to Cuba shrinking now
Tamayo, 6/18 – (Juan, “Cuba cites drop in U.S., European arrivals as tourism sags”, Miami Herald, 6/18,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/17/3456404/tourism-to-cuba-sags-mostly-because.html)//AB
Cuba’s tourism arrivals shrank by nearly 5 percent in April compared to the same month last year, largely
because of significant drops in visitors from the United States and southern Europe, according to official reports. But its income from
tourism held steady, apparently as Cuba raised its prices and reached out to more big-spending tourists, moving away from its
traditional attractions of low-cost, all-inclusive beach resorts. Cuba’s National Statistic Office (ONE) reported that tourist
arrivals fell from 288,000 in April of last year to 274,000 in the same month this year — a 4.9 percent drop. The 1.2 million
visitors for the first four months of this year was 1.4 percent down from the same period in 2012. Of the 18 source countries listed
separately by ONE, the three at the top — Canada, United Kingdom and Germany — saw increases of 1.3 percent, 8.1 percent and
11.8 percent, respectively. Visitors from
Spain plunged by 29.5 percent from April to April — from 6,359 to 3,834
by 7.2 percent and from France by 6.8 percent, according to the ONE report. But the most
significant drop was in the “other” category, which ONE uses to lump together arrivals from the United States and all
other countries with less than 2,000 or so tourists. That fell from 63,248 in April of last year to 54,771 this
April — 13.4 percent. Arrivals from “other” countries also fell from 258,378 in the first quarter of 2012 to 243,782 in the same
— from Italy
period this year, according to ONE. Johannes Werner, editor of the Tampa-based Cuba Standard, a publication that tracks the
island’s economy, said the drop in Spanish and Italian arrivals reflected the financial crisis lashing those countries. Spain, for
instance, has 20 percent unemployment. “This shows the continued weakness of the southern European markets, which have been
historically strong sources of tourists for Cuba,” Werner said. As for the drop in U.S. arrivals, Werner said he could only speculate
that the
initial wave of interest in travel to Cuba after the Obama administration began easing
restrictions on such travel in 2008 “has flattened out a bit.” Cuba travel industry officials in Miami told El Nuevo Herald
in February that only 45 charter flights to the island were scheduled for March, compared to 60 in
September.
AT: Govt Solves Env.
Cuban Government would sacrifice environment in face of increased tourism
Whittle, et al, 03, (Daniel, “International Tourism and the Protection of Cuba's Coastal and Marine Environments, in Tulane
Environmental Law Journal,” p. 3-4)//AB
Whether Cuba is on the verge of making the same mistakes made in coastal areas of the United States and the Caribbean or,
instead, can craft a new model for coastal protection, is on the minds of many, both inside and outside of Cuba. Cuba
has real
opportunities to develop a profitable and resilient tourist economy while still maintaining a rich and
magnificent environment that ensures visitors will return. Such¶ opportunities have been seriously compromised in Cancun, South
Florida, and countless other coastal areas around the world. But
Cuba is facing extreme economic difficulties,
and the temptation to cut corners and sacrifice long-term sustainability for short-term gain will be
great if economic recovery is prolonged. Nations in the Caribbean, and elsewhere, struggling to confront problems of
poverty typically¶ underinvest in environmental infrastructure. Though Cuba has fallen into this trap in the past, there are intriguing
efforts to try to do things differently as it pulls itself out of a decade-long economic crisis.¶ In this delicate equation, Cuba has
advantages and disadvantages when compared to other developing countries that have counted on tourist dollars to rescue their
economies. To Cuba’s distinct disadvantage¶ is the fact that its economy is still very much struggling to recover from a near total
collapse following the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and the subsequent loss of billions of dollars in annual financial
support in the years immediately following that collapse. As
the economy of Cuba grows, its wastewater and air
emissions from vehicles, power plants, and factories will also grow, just as its production of solid waste can be
expected to increase. Tourism development, especially in coastal¶ areas, has emerged as the country’s
chosen way out, and has now replaced sugar as the country’s top money maker. As the tourism
economy expands, with new resort hotels and other tourist facilities,¶ extensive networks of new roads, bridges, and environmental
infrastructure will be needed to avoid and minimize foreseeable adverse impacts to coastal air and water quality and natural
resources such as¶ mangroves, beaches, seagrass beds, and coral reefs. The
annual increase in the number of
foreign visitors to the island over the last decade has already been robust, and is significantly higher than most
other countries in the Caribbean. This growth rate could soar if the United States eases travel
restrictions, or completely lifts the almost forty-three-year-old trade embargo altogether.
Whether, in the face of severe economic pressures, Cuba can manage current demands, much less a
dramatic spike upward in the demand for tourism (particularly the U.S. brand of tourism), is no easy
question. To Cuba’s advantage, and not to be underestimated, is the will of its environmental professionals to get it right. Human
capital may be the country’s greatest asset, and Cuban environmental agencies and institutes lawyers, and other professionals.
While environmental protection may have played second fiddle to efforts to rekindle the economy in the early 1990s, things have
taken a turn for the better in recent years. As Professor Houck accurately concludes in his introduction to this Special Issue,
“environmental protection in Cuba is not a charade.”
***CARIBBEAN TOURISM DA/AT: ADD-ON***
1NC
US travel to Cuba trades-off with travel to other Caribbean states
Romeu 8 - a Senior Economist at the International Monetary Fund, where he has worked since 2001 (Rafael Romeu, IMF,
“Vacation Over: Implications for the Caribbean of Opening U.S.-Cuba Tourism,” published July 2008,
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2008/wp08162.pdf, accessed 6/27/13, IS)
Economic diversification requires finding an instrument that identifies visitor preferences in a market
in a hypothetical post-opening of Cuba-U.S. tourism. Previous work has found that measures of national
culture (or cultural distance) are a useful instrument for predicting such preferences. In other words, measures
of cultural distance identify OECD tourists with destination preferences that differ from U.S. tourists. As the likelihood of Cuba
opening to U.S. tourism were to rise, Caribbean competitors would need to hedge potential tourist
losses to Cuba by diversifying to from US. tourists, therefore diversifying the Cuban economy, and toward culturally different
countries. This effect would be strongest and most observable for Caribbran destinations that are most dependent on U.S. tourists.
This effect would also be most observable whenever it were to appear that the Cuba-U.S. tourism restrictions might be lifted. In such
times, heavily U.S.-dependent countries would have a strong incentive to diversify away from U.S. tourists, that is, reduce * in
Equation (8). At times when these tourism restrictions are very unlikely to end, they would have little incentive to do so.
Tourism in the Caribbean’s supports the economy—the sector helps stabilize
the countries
King et al 00 [Dana, July. PDF- The Impact of Tourism in the Caribbean. Page 1
http://fama2.us.es:8080/turismo/turismonet1/economia%20del%20turismo/turismo%20zonal/centro%20america/impact%20of
%20tourism%20in%20Caribbe.pdf]
Tourism represents the biggest industry in the World. The consistent growth of tourists and tourism
receipts over the decades since international travel became accessible to the general pubic, has convinced many
developing nations that they can profit from tourism. Caribbean countries, such as Jamaica and
Barbados, have had a history of tourism development, and the region as a whole has seen much
growth in the sector. Even¶ with the global recession of the 1970s and early 1980s, tourist¶ arrivals to the Caribbean rose
52.2% from 1978-1988. Islands that were not apart of this initial surge in tourism are eager to obtain
their share of the spoils, and those who are old hands in the industry seek to maintain or
surpass their share. However, it¶ is important that the Caribbean not take for granted their portion¶ of the world’s tourists.
In 1998, growth to Caribbean¶ destinations was a slow 1.7%. In order to ensure continuing¶ success in the tourism industry, islands
of the Caribbean need to¶ aggressively pursue a strategy of sustainable tourism¶ development.
Ext. Caribbean Econ Impact
Tourism to the Caribbean helps the economy and the environment
Hill 10 [Danielle is trained in neuro-linguistic programming and holds a Bachelor of Arts in comparative literature and literary
translation from Brown University http://traveltips.usatoday.com/benefits-tourism-caribbean-63423.html 6.29.13]
the Caribbean represent paradise for many. Just a short flight from the
continental United States, the region lures visitors from around the globe, but especially from North America.
While tourism can have both positive and detrimental effects in any location, tourists in the Caribbean can
contribute to the countries both economically and environmentally.¶ Economic Benefit¶
Tourism in the Caribbean has a sizable effect on local nations' economies. Tourism accounted
for $22.9 billion of revenue in 2008, according to the Caribbean Tourism Organization. While tourism
spending fluctuated somewhat between 2008 and 2010, 20 countries reported an increase in tourists during
2010, including five countries with increases of 10 percent or more. Considering the somewhat limited
diversity of industry in many Caribbean countries, tourism can account for a large proportion of the
country's economy. In 2008, travel and tourism accounted for 13.5 percent of the GDP of all
Caribbean countries. In 2009, the figure held at 12.8 percent.¶ Ecological Benefit¶ Tourism in the Caribbean is
inextricably linked with the islands' natural resources, as anyone who's visited the palm-studded beaches,
vibrant reefs or balmy jungles can attest. As a result, efforts to preserve the local ecosystems are vital to the
continued economical benefit of tourism. The movement towards sustainable and ecologically responsible tourism
From pristine beaches to lush rainforests, the islands of
largely started in the 1990s. The Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism (CAST) formed in 1995 and the Caribbean Hotel
Association Environmental Committee formed in 1992. Efforts
by the committees include the Blue Flag
program, a system of grading and highlighting those beaches with the best environmental practices.¶ Benefit to Local
Economies¶ Besides the economic benefits at the level of national GDP, tourism can positively
impact local economies and small business owners. In light of the relative poverty in many Caribbean
countries, in comparison with the United States and developed home nations of most tourists, the UK Travel Foundation founded
the Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership. The partnership analyzes and recommends the best practices within the local tourism industry for
Good practices include using local producers in the supply chain, from
employing local residents, and forging partnerships with local tour operators
and excursion providers.¶ Maximizing Benefit: What Tourists Can Do¶ How a visitor chooses to travel around the
maximum local economic benefit.
craftspeople to farmers;
Caribbean can dramatically affect the extent of the environmental benefit. Look for ecologically responsible tour operators and
cruises. Inquire into the providers' specific ecological practices so that you don't attend an green-branded trip with little actual
ecological benefit. Frommer's recommends providers such as AdvenTours in Puerto Rico (adventourspr.com) or
(machiasadventures.com) in St. Vincent. While an airplane trip to the Caribbean will leave a carbon footprint, you can offset the
effect by selecting companies that follow ecologically sound practices, such as recycling or the use of locally sourced products.
N/U – Caribbean Travel Low Now
The Caribbean tourism industry is low now, and will continue to fall
Jessop, 2/1 [David Jessop, Director of the Caribbean Council, “The long-term future of Caribbean tourism”, 2/1/13,
http://www.caribbean-council.org/sites/default/files/colfeb1%20(The%20future%20of%20Caribbean%20tourism%201).doc,
6/30/13]
A week or so ago, the Board of the Caribbean Hotels and Tourism Association (CHTA) passed unanimously a resolution calling on
Caribbean Heads of Government to convene a summit on tourism. What the private sector body wants is for urgent high level
consideration to be given to the many challenges now facing the industry and the threats these pose to region’s tourism-dependent
economy. ¶ Since then their request has been dismissed by some commentators as posturing. ¶ Why this should be is in part a
reflection of a sense across the region that the industry, and hoteliers in particular, are too well off, that tourism largely involves
foreigners, and that those who run it have been crying wolf for too long, without offering solutions that the region’s political
leadership can relate to. ¶ The matter is not helped by there being an uncertain hiatus between the retirement of CHTA’s Director
General, and the appointment of a successor; with the consequence that there is, as yet, no indication of who is to follow through,
to ensure that such a high level exchange might occur. ¶ Despite this, there is real merit in the concerns expressed by CHTA and a
clear need for a policy dialogue on key issues between all key stakeholders in and beyond the region on the future of what has
become a highly complex and vital industry. ¶ It may of course not be possible to bring all Heads together, but there would be real
value if one, or better still a small group of Prime Ministers who understand the political, economic and social dimensions of
tourism, were to provide the political leadership necessary to create such an encounter. This would have particular value if such a
group were able to report to their colleagues on the political steps required to enable Caribbean tourism to remain fresh, viable and
that
although the number of visitor arrivals into the region is again increasing, the value of the
tourism economy is moving in the other direction: since 2007, for example, annual visitor
spend has fallen by US$5 billion. Governments ignore this at their peril. If income is falling and profitability has yet to
able to provide sustainable long term support for the Caribbean economy.¶ The reality of Caribbean tourism today is
reach pre-2007 levels, it suggests that the Caribbean is becoming less competitive in relation to other destinations, and that
current levels of tourism employment and tax revenue may not be sustainable. ¶ There is no
shortage of statistics or professional advice to suggest this, but a dearth of industry voices able to articulate
this clearly or politically and promote a serious debate not about where the industry now is, but where it might be in twenty years
time.¶ What is even odder is that beyond this there is little if any interest by governments or regional institutions in the econometric
modelling of the Caribbean industry to enable the development of models into which assumptions that for instance demonstrate
whether the reduction or increase in taxes bring greater or lesser returns. As a consequence, taxes go up, airlines are incentivised
and tax holidays are granted without there being any clear understanding of whether the short, medium or long term impact is likely
For an industry worth more than US$25 billion per annum and which
employs at least thirteen per cent of the region’s workforce, this is truly disturbing. ¶
to be positive or negative.
***CPs***
Embargo CP
1NC
The United States Federal Government should eliminate the trade embargo on
Cuba and repeal the Helms-Burton Act of 1996.
Generic Solvency
The Counterplan solves better than the affirmative
Griswold 5 – director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, where he has
authored numerous studies on trade and immigration policy. Before joining Cato in 1997,
Griswold served as a congressional press secretary and a daily newspaper editorial page editor.
He has written for major newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times,
appeared on CNN, PBS, C-Span and other national TV and radio networks, and testified before
congressional committees. (Daniel Griswold, CATO Institute, “Four Decades of Failure: The U.S.
Embargo against Cuba,” 10/12/5 http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decadesfailure-us-embargo-against-cuba, accessed 7/2/13, IS)
A Half-Century of Failure¶ 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. ¶ 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¶ Despite the success of our farm exports, U.S. policy toward Cuba has if anything been sliding backwards. In 1996, Congress
mistakenly raised the embargo to a new level with passage of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. Known as the
Helms-Burton act, it threatens to punish foreign-based companies that allegedly engage in the
“wrongful trafficking in property confiscated by the Castro regime.” The law is legally flawed
because it allows U.S. courts to rule on actions of parties who were not U.S. citizens and were not
in the United States when the alleged offense took place. As a foreign-policy tool, the law perversely punishes, not the Castro regime
itself, but some of our closest commercial allies such as Canada and the European Union.¶ The Bush administration has compounded
our failed policies by turning the screws even tighter on travel to Cuba. The administration has dramatically ramped up the number
of Americans cited for violating the travel ban compared to the Clinton administration. Among the people caught in the
government’s dragnet have been a 75-year-old retired schoolteacher from Wisconsin who was fined $1,000 for a bicycle tour
through rural Cuba, and man from Washington state who was fined for taking his father’s ashes to ¶ Cuba, where the family had
served as Assembly of God missionaries in the 1950s.¶ Double Standard on Sanctions¶ 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
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.”¶ 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. ¶ CubanAmerican 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 CubanAmericans 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-a-half
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.¶ How many decades does the U.S. government need to bang
its head against a wall before it changes a failed policy?¶ Thank you.
Net Benefit: Politics
Net Benefit: Removing the travel ban is insufficient, and thus unpopular. A
majority of US citizens, most countries, and a bipartisan group of Congressmen
and Congresswomen want a more expansive program.
CCS 9 (The Center for Cuban Studies, “The Latest in U.S. and Cuban Relations,” published 2009,
http://www.cubaupdate.org/cuba-update/us-cuba/117-the-latest-in-us-and-cuba-relations,
accessed 7/3/13, IS)
Shortly before the Organization of American States began its summit on the island of Trinidad this past April, the media reported
that the Obama administration had undertaken a significant policy shift in regards to relations
with Cuba. It is extremely important, however, to recognize that these changes do not mark an end to the nearly fifty year long
trade embargo, nor do they signify and end to the travel restrictions that prevent most U.S. citizens from
traveling to Cuba legally. What this change essentially does is repeal the most extreme measures that tightened the
embargo under the administration of George W. Bush, which limited the amount of remittances that Cubans living in the United
States could send to the island, and restricted family visits to once every three years. While
this change in policy is
certainly a welcome step in the right direction, the truly necessary change would be a move to
end the embargo and a normalization of relations between the two countries. The world community’s desire for
an end to the U.S. imposed trade embargo has been manifested in the form of several successive
United Nations resolutions, each of them overwhelmingly in favor of the U.S. changing its policy toward Cuba. Opinion
within the United States has shifted as well. Recently, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll revealed that
two thirds of U.S. citizens favor ending the travel ban, and that three quarters favor normalized relations
between Cuba and the United States. Many members of Congress have also changed their positions. On
March 31, 2009, a bi-partisan group of senators introduced a bill, which, if passed, will end the travel
ban, allowing for all U.S. citizens to visit the island. Indiana senator Richard Lugar, ranking Republican on the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee and a sponsor of the bill, has stated that “the unilateral embargo on Cuba has
failed to achieve its stated purpose of ‘bringing democracy to the Cuban people.’” U.S.
Representative Barbara Lee (Democrat-California), who recently met with both Raúl and Fidel Castro while travelling to
Cuba with the Congressional Black Caucus, noted that “we have to remember that every country in Latin
America has normal relations with Cuba; we’re the country which is isolated. Despite these positive
recent developments, however, there is still resistance to changing Cuba policy within the U.S. government. The opposition from
right wing Cuban-American members of congress is predictable, but it is also important to remember that now Vice President Joe
Biden voted for the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, and that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated that she imposes lifting the
embargo. Hopefully recent developments will help these officials to reverse their previous positions.
And lifting the travel ban is just a baby step. Politicians and US Citizens will
remain unsatisfied unless the embargo is lifted.
Robinson 9 – Communications and Media, Havana Times manager, studied in the US. (Circles Robinson, Havana Times,
“Obama’s Moves Insufficient for Change,” 9/16/09, http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=13868, accessed 7/2/13, IS)
Lifting the travel restrictions on Cuban-Americans and their ability to send remittances or packages to Cuba repairs
“a grave injustice” to that population but has “a very limited reach” as far as rapprochement
between the United States and Cuba, noted Cuban representatives at the United Nations.¶ From Cuba’s perspective,
what’s top on the list for change in US-Cuba relations is the economic blockade that has caused it
more than US $90 billion dollars in damage over the last half century.¶ However, on Monday, President Obama signed an order
maintaining the blockade for another year, “in the national interest of the United States.”¶ Recent
polls show that a
majority of US citizens disagree with that appraisal and would like to see the Cold War policy
finally come to end.¶ In October, the UN General Assembly will once again consider Cuba’s demand that the blockade be
lifted. Last year 185 countries voted for the resolution telling Washington to end its time-worn
policy against Cuba and only 2 countries supported the US position.¶ Another unresolved internal US
issue being discussed on Capitol Hill is the travel ban prohibiting ordinary US citizens from visiting Cuba.
CP Solves Aff – Democracy
Loosening the embargo is key to solving Democratic liberties. Plan solves better
than the 1AC.
Martinez 11 – American journalist. He is currently the director of the Bernard L. Schwartz
Fellows Program at the New America Foundation. In the past, he has worked as an opinion
journalist and business writer, his highest position as editorial page editor of the Los Angeles
Times, writer for the Washington Post (Andres Martinez, The Washington Post, “We Support
Democratic Uprisings In The Middle East. Why Not In Cuba?,” 4/8/11,
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-04-07/opinions/35231296_1_alan-gross-cubanpeople-tropical-gulag, accessed 6/30/13, IS)
Nor is the American right a friend to Cubans; the Cuban American exile community in Florida has long been
the Havana regime’s co-conspirator in keeping their brethren on the island trapped in the
past. The U.S. embargo on Cuba is a stark departure from the American belief that more, rather than less, commercial and cultural
engagement is key to loosening totalitarian regimes’ grip on power. Our trade embargo and travel ban empower
the Castros by helping the regime keep the island hermetically sealed and provide the regime
a permanent license to deprive people of their liberties: Claiming that they are besieged by “el
imperio” gives the Castro brothers the perfect alibi at home and throughout Latin America.
CP Solves Aff – Latin American Relations
Lifting the embargo is the only way to open the US up to Latin American
nations. Other nations see America as the aggressor – the only way to remedy
that view is to lift the embargo.
White 3/7 - a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, was the United States
ambassador to Paraguay from 1977 to 1979 and to El Salvador from 1980 to 1981. (Robert E.
White, The New York Times, “After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba,” 3/7/13,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinion/after-chavez-hope-for-good-neighbors-in-latinamerica.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&partner=rss&emc=rss, accessed 72/13, IS)
FOR most of our history, the United States assumed that its security was inextricably linked to
a partnership with Latin America. This legacy dates from the Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, through the Rio
pact, the postwar treaty that pledged the United States to come to the defense of its allies in Central and South America.¶ Yet for
a half-century, our policies toward our southern neighbors have alternated between
intervention and neglect, inappropriate meddling and missed opportunities. The death this week of President Hugo
Chávez of Venezuela — who along with Fidel Castro of Cuba was perhaps the most vociferous critic of the United States among the
political leaders of the Western Hemisphere in recent decades — offers an opportunity to restore bonds with potential allies who
share the American goal of prosperity.¶ Throughout his career, the autocratic Mr. Chávez used our embargo as a wedge with which
to antagonize the United States and alienate its supporters. His fuel helped prop up the rule of Mr. Castro and his brother Raúl,
Cuba’s current president. The embargo no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did at all); President Obama should end it,
though it would mean overcoming powerful opposition from Cuban-American lawmakers in Congress.¶ An
end to the Cuba
embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a
new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the
Americas.¶ I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in the
1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy’s creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The
1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt
pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century.¶ Kennedy had
a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent revolution. Kennedy
reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere
that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from Communism. He pledged billions of dollars
to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy’s focus on Latin America rekindled the
promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American relations.¶
Tragically, after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and “la noche mas larga” — “the
longest night” — began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic governments
withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech and assembly were curtailed and
human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of anti-Communism.¶ During my
Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981,
as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to
cover up the Salvadoran military’s responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the
Foreign Service.¶ The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned
its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped expand the Salvadoran
military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes.¶ After our
counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research institute, the RAND
Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that United States policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth
that the insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, “we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves,
for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception of the national interest.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 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.
Immediate Lifting Key
Immediate lifting of US embargo solves – prevents irrational policy toward
Cuba and increases US foreign capital
Zimbalist 94 – Professor of Economics at Smith College (Andrew, “Liberate Cuba. Liberate Us. Lift the Embargo, Now.; Give
Castro A Carrot,” New York Times, 17 February 1994, http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/17/opinion/liberate-cuba-liberate-us-lift-the-embargo-now-give-castro-a-carrot.html,
Accessed 30 June 2013
many reasons why this quid pro quo gradualism is ill-conceived, but two stand out. Once the U.S. takes its
first significant step -- lifting travel restrictions or allowing trade or investment in medical products -- Mr. Clinton will have burned his
bridges with the ultra-conservative Cuban American National Foundation. Virtually the only reason
that the embargo is still in place is the political clout of this well-financed organization. Once Mr.
Clinton alienated it, the political constraint on a rational policy toward Cuba would disappear .¶ More
importantly, as the Administration made its first clear move toward normalization, foreign capital from Europe, Canada, Latin America and Asia would
pour into Cuba, as investors moved to exploit opportunities that would come with the
prospective opening of the U.S. market.¶ Over the last three years, Cuba has received $500 million in foreign capital through 112 joint
There are
ventures in tourism, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing.¶ Yet the present value of U.S. properties nationalized from 1959 to 1961 in Cuba, when far fewer opportunities for
profitable investment existed, is more than $5 billion. With 11 million people, a disciplined and well-trained labor force and proximity to the U.S. market, Cuba offers additional
A gradual lifting of the embargo would preserve the existing
advantage of overseas companies and give them a jump-start on exploiting these new
opportunities while U.S. capital continued to have its hands tied.¶ It makes political and
economic sense simply to lift the embargo all at once. The U.S. can retain leverage through carrots instead of sticks: setting
a higher sugar import quota, offering economic aid or most-favored-nation trade status,
negotiating frozen Cuban assets or waiving compensation for nationalized properties.¶ How can
billions of dollars in prospective investments.
President Clinton call for democracy in Cuba when his own policy is determined by a handful of reactionary exiles? This is Mr. Clinton's chance to manifest clarity and courage in
his foreign policy.
AT: Gradual Lifting
Gradually lifting doesn’t solve- it must be whole and immediate
Mitchell 01 – Lieutenant Colonel (Stephan D., “The Decline of Political Pertinence: U.S. Economic Sanctions against Cuba,” Strategy Research
Project, 18 March 2001 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA389930, Accessed 30 June 2013
A partial lifting of the embargo in response to some
change for the better in the Castro regime will not work. First, it is inconceivable to any but
the most intractable anti-Castro elements in the United States that a settlement could occur
on the basis of the Helms-Burton provisions calling for virtual political suicide on the part of
the Revolution. Second, this quid pro quo approach has failed in the past and will likely fail in
the future. Castro will never willingly allow himself to be seen as succumbing to Washington’s
directives. He may play with the idea of normalization; but at the moment he perceives his
control and Cuban sovereignty threatened, he will revert to the status quo.
There are two basic ways to lift the embargo, piecemeal or all at once.
And incremental changes aren’t enough. Only opening up the embargo will
unfreeze relations
Hinderdael 11 M.A. candidate at SAIS Bologna Center, concentrating in American Foreign
Policy and Energy, Resources, and Environment [Klaas Hinderdael, Breaking the Logjam:
Obama's Cuba Policy and a Guideline for Improved Leadership, by http://bcjournal.org/volume14/breaking-the-logjam.html?printerFriendly=true]
As a result of the administration’s hesitancy to drastically shift its Cuba policy, Abraham
Lowenthal, an expert on Cuban-American relations, has concluded, “far from ushering in a
new beginning, the Obama administration seemed to revert to the stance of several previous US
administrations: it would wait for Cuba to change.”13 Despite sluggish progress in shifting policies and improving
relations, this analysis seems to disregard President Obama’s consistent ideological rejection of an America working only with a
league of Democracies.
In fact, it appears that engagement, albeit slowly, is continuing to gain traction within the administration.
In particular, this has been visible since mid-2010, when Raúl began a second round of economic reforms,14 bringing many experts
to claim that “a new phase in Cuban history is unfolding.”15 In September 2010, Raúl announced that the state was cutting a halfmillion jobs, simultaneously giving incentives to citizens to open new private businesses and instituting a new payroll tax on a sliding
scale to increase the hiring of labor.16
It is telling that Raúl’s reforms alter the founding principles of the post-1959 Cuban society. Raúl himself implied an internal shift
when he noted, “Socialism means equality of rights, not of income... equality is not egalitarianism.”17 At the most fundamental
level, these economic reforms indicate a transformation in the relationship between Cuban society and its government. In addition,
Raúl has indicated an increased willingness to make political reforms, releasing nearly all of the island’s political prisoners, including
52 in July 2010.18 though they leave much to be desired in the realm of human rights, the scope of Raúl’s newest era of reforms is
unprecedented in post-Cold War Cuba.
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 Guideline for Breaking Through the Logjam
The strategic, economic, and political background that has helped shape America’s Cuba
policy has shifted tremendously since the end of the Cold War. For half a century, the United States has
attempted—and failed—to force democratization on the island by combining an economic
embargo with either diplomatic isolation or limited engagement. In recent years, however, Raúl has
increasingly charted a new course for Cuba. Despite many of these reforms being in line with American values and interests, there
has not been a drastic change in US-Cuba policy. Given
the continued failure of past Cuba policies to achieve the stated
leaders should understand that there is much to gain from ending the embargo
and opening diplomatic relations with Cuba—and surprisingly little to lose.
goals, American
We should end the entire economic embargo at once. Gradual reform is links
into America’s imperialist past.
Michelle Chase [Michelle Chase is a doctoral candidate in the history department of New York
University. She is writing a dissertation on the gender politics of the Cuban Revolution, writing
for NACLA- North American Congress on Latin America]¶ The Bigger Picture of the Cuban
Embargo and Travel Ban¶ Apr 28 2009¶ https://nacla.org/news/bigger-picture-cuban-embargoand-travel-ban
Last week, on the eve of the Summit of the Americas held in Trinidad and Tobago, President Barack Obama announced
new measures to permit unlimited Cuban-American travel and remittances to the island. These
relaxations immediately set off predictions that the entire travel ban would soon be lifted. And in fact, there are bills in both the
House and Senate that aim to do just that.¶ The excitement over these new possibilities, however, should be tempered with a note
of caution.¶ Although
there have always been important voices raised in the United States over
the injustice of the embargo, much of the progressive mobilization effort of recent years has
focused on a complete end to the travel ban, demanding the right to travel “for all, not for
some.” The campaign has generated support partly by casting the embargo as a violation of U.S. citizens’ freedom to travel.¶
But as full liberalization of travel now looms, it is clearer than ever that a progressive opposition to U.S.
Cuba policy needs to focus on ending the entire embargo, and for the right, big-picture
reasons : The embargo violates Cuban sovereignty and is patently imperialist. Otherwise, the
momentum for U.S. Cuba policy reform will be co-opted by representatives of the tourism, agricultural and telecommunication
industries.¶ The new relaxations announced by Obama are, of course, mostly positive and welcome; any measures that diminish the
daily hardships endured by Cubans would be. But these changes will also ensure that money and goods sent to Cuba will go through
private hands and family networks, rather than allowing the Cuban state to guide the distribution of those resources. While the
socialist government has a decidedly mixed record on overturning historic inequalities based on race and class, we nevertheless
know, based on what happened during the Special Period, that resources funneled through private channels greatly exacerbate
existing class and especially race tensions.¶ Obama's reforms will play out differently among Miami's increasingly diverse Cuban
community. Recently emigrated, less educated, darker-skinned migrants will likely use the reforms to help improve their families'
situation back on the island, primarily at the level of everyday purchases like food, clothes, and home repairs. However, assistance
sent by Miami's more established and affluent Cuban-Americans could help their relatives on the island acquire centrally-located
property on the black market or proffer the substantial bribes that have increasingly become necessary to secure small business
licenses and sometimes even to obtain plum jobs in the tourist sector.¶ Thus, the new measures will not benefit all Cubans equally.
They will raise the consumption levels of those with family abroad and, less directly, of those employed in the service sector in
Havana and other tourist destinations. But the embargo, which remains firmly in place through the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act and
the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, will still block things like the importation of badly needed modern farming equipment and key
infrastructural improvements.¶ Fully
ending the travel ban is necessary and desirable, but doing so
while leaving the embargo in place is one way that Washington is trying to scuttle Havana's
ability to guide its own internal affairs.
Gradual lifting of embargo fails – prevents transition to democratic society
Suchlicki 2k – professor of History, specializes in Latin American affairs, with special emphasis
on Cuba, Mexico, and U.S. relations with the region (Jaime, “The U.S. Embargo of Cuba,” Institute for Cuban & Cuban-American
Studies Occasional Papers, 2000, Paper 31. http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/iccaspapers/31
gradual lifting of the embargo now will condemn the Cuban people to a longer dictatorship
entails a real danger that the U.S. may
implement irreversible policies toward Cuba while Castro provides no concessions to the U.S.
The
and the perpetuation of a failed Marxist- Leninist society.¶ The gradual lifting of the embargo
A piecemeal lifting of the embargo will guarantee the continuance of the present
totalitarian political structures and prevent a rapid transformation of Cuba into a free and
democratic society.
or concessions that he can reverse.¶
Terror List CP
Note: some of this evidence can also function as case defense against Cuban terrorism impacts.
Cuba’s placement on the state sponsored terrorism list is unfounded and a Cold
War relic. Cuba no longer poses any threat to the US.
Williams 5/3 – Los Angeles Times international affairs writer. Former foreign correspondent,
25 years covering Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. Senior International Affairs
Writer (Carol J. Williams, LA Times, “Political calculus keeps Cuba on U.S. list of terror sponsors,”
5/3/13, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/03/world/la-fg-wn-cuba-us-terror-list-20130502,
accessed 6/30/13,
Cuba’s communist leadership was quick to send condolences to the victims of the Boston
Marathon bombings and to reiterate to Washington that it “rejects and condemns
unequivocally all acts of terrorism.Ӧ Once a key supplier of arms and training to leftist rebels in Latin America, the
Castro regime long ago disentangled itself from the Cold War-era confrontations. Havana now
hosts peace talks between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia that it once supported and the
U.S.-allied government the insurgents battled for years. ¶ Havana still gives refuge to a few fugitive radicals from the Black Panthers
and Basque insurgents, and two years ago a Cuban court convicted 64-year-old development specialist Alan Gross on spying charges
for attempting to install satellite equipment without government permission.¶ But nothing
that Cuba has done
suggests its government is plotting harm against Americans, national security experts say. And
they criticize as counterproductive the State Department’s decision, disclosed this week, to
keep Cuba on its list of “state sponsors of terrorism.”¶ “We ought to reserve that term for
nations that actually use the apparatus of statehood to support the targeting of U.S. interests
and civilians,” said Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs at the Department of Homeland
Security and now writing and lecturing on national security in the Boston area. “Yes, Cuba does a lot of bad things that
we don’t like, but it doesn’t rise to anything on the level of a terrorist threat.”¶ On Wednesday, State
Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said the administration “has no current plans to remove Cuba” from the list to be released
later this month. The island nation that has been under a U.S. trade and travel embargo since shortly after revolutionary leader Fidel
Castro came to power in 1959 is in the company of only Iran, Syria and Sudan in being branded with the “state sponsor” label.¶
Kayyem laments the “diluting” of the terrorist designation based on political or ideological
disputes.¶ “We work with a lot of countries we don’t like, but the imprimatur of ‘terrorism’ has a ring to it in a way that can be
harmful to us,” she said.¶ Collaboration between the United States and Cuba on emergency planning to respond to the mutual
threats posed by hurricanes, oil spills and refugee crises are complicated by the set of trade and financial restrictions that comes
along with the “state sponsor” censure, Kayyem said.¶ “There
are some real operational impediments when
we have a system that begins with ‘no’ rather than ‘why not?’ ” she said of the legally encumbered
contacts between Havana and Washington.¶ Politicians who have pushed for a continued hard line against Cuba cheered their
victory in getting the Obama administration to keep Cuba on the list. U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a South Florida Republican
whose efforts to isolate and punish the Castro regime have been a central plank of her election strategy throughout her 24 years in
Congress, hailed the State Department decision as “reaffirming the threat that the Castro regime represents.”¶ Arash Aramesh, a
national security analyst at Stanford Law School, blamed the continued branding of Cuba as a terrorism sponsor on politicians
“pandering for a certain political base.” He also said President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry have failed to make a
priority of removing the impediment to better relations with Cuba.
And Cuba is on the list because of their reactions to aggressive US foreign
polices. That paints the US as hypocritical.
Schepers 3/11 - a veteran civil and immigrant rights activist. Emile Schepers was born in
South Africa and has a doctorate in cultural anthropology from Northwestern University. He has
worked as a researcher and activist in urban, working-class communities in Chicago since 1966
(Emile Schepers, “Groups fight to remove Cuba from “terrorism sponsors” list,” 3/11/13,
http://peoplesworld.org/groups-fight-to-remove-cuba-from-terrorism-sponsors-list/, accessed
6/30/13, IS)
At the headquarters of the National Press Club in downtown Washington D.C., a consortium of organizations announced a new push
to get Cuba taken off the State Department's "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list on Thursday last week.¶ The event, in the form of a
panel discussion, was sponsored by the Center for International Policy, the Latin American Working Group (LAWG), and the
Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). The MC was Wayne Smith, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy, who
was the head of the U.S. Interests Section (instead of embassy) in Havana from 1979 to 1982, having been appointed by Jimmy
Carter. Other participants were Congressman James P. McGovern, D-Massachusetts, former ambassador Anthony Quainton who is
now "Diplomat in Residence" at American University, Robert Muse of Muse and Associates, and Adam Isacson of WOLA.¶
Congressman McGovern, who has followed U.S. Cuba policy closely, just got back from a visit to Cuba with a bipartisan delegation
headed by Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont. McGovern participated in a two hour meeting with Cuban President Raul Castro. He
and the other speakers pushed for an overall change in U.S.-Cuba policy, of which removal of Cuba from the State Sponsors of
Terrorism would be a useful first step.¶ It would be of symbolic value, but it would also be a necessary step if current restrictions on
trade with Cuba are going to be lifted, because presence of a country on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list prohibits certain kinds
of trade, aid and financial transactions. To get a country off the list, the administration would have to certify that it is not supporting
terrorism and that it agrees not to do so in the future.¶ Cuba was first put on this list in 1982, during the Reagan administration.
What was Cuba doing around then that merited this?¶ First of all, it was helping the independent nation of Angola to resist armed
intervention orchestrated by the apartheid regime in South Africa. The South African government wanted to reduce Angola to a
client state so that it could not be a rear base for South Africans fighting to end apartheid and Namibians fighting for their
independence. To this end, the South African regime teamed up with Angolan warlord Jonas Savimbi and his UNITA organization.
Savimbi was a particularly brutal example of the warlord type, which did not prevent the U.S. government from supporting him also.
Cuban support for the Angolan government started in the 1970s and went through a number of phases, culminating in the crucial
siege of Cuito Cuanavale in 1987-1988, in which Angolan and Cuban troops defeated a South African-organized column. Most
analysts think it was this defeat that finally motivated the apartheid regime to seek a negotiated settlement with tjhe African
National Congress and the SWAPO freedom organization in Namibia, bringing independence to Namibia and the end of apartheid in
South Africa.¶ In Central America, Cuba provided support such as training for revolutionaries who were trying to overthrow series of
bloodthirsty dictators and their regimes. The United States, on the other hand, was supporting those regimes with money, arms and
logistical help. In the case of Nicaragua the United States was providing this support to the "Contras," right-wing armed groups who
specialized in murdering school teachers and labor activists, and who were also involved in the drug trade.¶ The
United States
also conducted some direct terrorist activities. To give just one example, in the World Court in the
Hague found the United States guilty of placing deadly mines in the harbor at the Corinto and
two other ports in Nicaragua. The mines caused the deaths of two people and damage to
numerous ships and boats belonging to Nicaragua but also to other nations. Nicaragua filed a
complaint with the World Court against the United States; the court ruled for Nicaragua but the United States never even
acknowledged this ruling.¶ So
Cuba was put on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list largely because of
its support for struggles against tyranny and racism.¶ The United States at that time was
supporting that selfsame tyranny and racism, with money, arms and direct intervention. It
was doing this through terroristic methods.¶ Most of these things went on under Republican administrations, but
plenty of Democratic Party leaders, either for their own ideological reasons or out of fear of the Cuban exile lobby in the United
States, have, with the exception of President Jimmy Carter and a few others, not done much to change this. Some have been just as
gung ho about attacking Cuba as the Republicans.¶ Apartheid
is gone, Savimbi is dead, and the civil wars in
Central America are over. Cuba has cordial diplomatic and trade relations with all the
countries which were supposedly victims of Cuban terrorism, even those with right wing
governments. But Cuba has stayed on the list, under pretexts I have dealt with in a previous
article.¶ The classification of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism when it is nothing of the sort, and when it is in fact playing a
major role in trying to end the civil war in Colombia in negotiations which the U.S. says it supports, is so absurd that perhaps the
current administration can be shamed, pressured or cajoled to drop Cuba from the list. President
Obama does not need
permission from Congress to do this; it can be done with the stroke of a pen.¶ The public voice needs
to be heard on this, or nothing will happen. There is a petition circulating on the internet calling for the removal of Cuba from the
"State Sponsors of Terrorism" list. We should all sign it and circulate it as widely as possible.
Removing Cuba from the list is key to US Cuban relations. CP solves better than
the 1AC.
Franks 5/31 – (Jeff Franks, Reuter, Cuba says inclusion on U.S. terrorist list 'shameful',
5/31/13, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-cuba-usa-terrorismidUSBRE94U05020130531, accessed 6/30/13, IS)
(Reuters) - In
what has become an annual ritual, the United States on Thursday kept Cuba on its
list of "state sponsors of terrorism" and Havana reacted angrily, calling it a "shameful
decision" based in politics, not reality.¶ Cuba said in a statement that the U.S. government was pandering to the
Cuban exile community in Miami against its own interests and the wishes of the American people.¶ "It hopes to please an anti-Cuban
group, growing smaller all the time, which tries to maintain a policy that now has no support and doesn't even represent the
national interests of the United States," said the statement issued by Cuba's foreign ministry.¶ Iran, Sudan and Syria also are on the
list, which is published annually by the U.S. State Department. Cuba has been on it since 1982.¶ The terrorism designation comes
with a number of sanctions, including a prohibition on U.S. economic assistance and financial restrictions that create problems for
Cuba in international commerce, already made difficult by a U.S. trade embargo imposed against the island since 1962.¶ The State
Department's explanation for Cuba's inclusion on the list discounted most of the reasons from previous years and said "there was no
indication that the Cuban government provided weapons or paramilitary training to terrorist groups."¶ In the past, the report
fingered Cuba for harboring rebels from the Marxist-led FARC, or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and members of Basque
separatist groups.¶ This year, it noted that Cuba is sponsoring peace talks between the FARC and the Colombian government and
has moved to distance itself from the Basques.¶ Washington's primary accusation was that Cuba harbors and provides aid to
fugitives from U.S. justice. Cuba does not deny that it has fugitives from the United States, but said none had been accused of
terrorism.¶ Robert Muse, a Washington attorney who specializes in Cuba issues, said there is no legal basis for designating Cuba as a
terrorist sponsor because of the presence of the fugitives.¶ He said they remain on the island because the Washington has refused
to honor a longstanding extradition treaty with Cuba.¶ Earlier this month, the FBI placed one of the fugitives, Joanne Chesimard, on
its most wanted terrorist list 40 years after she was convicted of killing a New Jersey state trooper. Chesimard, a former member of
a black militant group, has been in Cuba since 1984.¶ Cuba
rejected the notion that she or anyone else on the
island was involved in terrorist activities.¶ "The territory of Cuba has never been used and never will be to harbor
terrorists of any origin, nor to organize, finance or perpetrate acts of terrorism against any country in the world, including the United
States," it said.¶ Geoff Thale, program director at the Washington Office on Latin America think tank, said President Barack
Obama can take Cuba off the terrorist list at any time and should do so because it is "clear
that the State Department doesn't really believe that Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism."¶
Removing Cuba from the list would improve relations with Cuba and all of Latin America,
which sees U.S. policy toward Cuba "as a reflection of U.S. attitudes toward the region as a
whole," Thale said.¶
And taking Cuba off of the list is the only way to restore relations
Caribbean 360 2/22 – (Caribbean 360, “No ease for Cuba from US state sponsor of terrorism
list,” 2/22/13, http://www.caribbean360.com/index.php/news/670101.html#axzz2XjgChaqg,
accessed 6/30/13, IS)
The United States has denied reports that it plans to remove Cuba from a list of countries that
support terrorism.¶ “I saw that report. Let me say firmly here it is incorrect,” US State Department spokesperson Victoria
Nuland told reporters here. “This department has no current plans to remove Cuba from the state sponsor of terrorism list.¶ “We
review this every year, and at the current moment when the last review was done in 2012, we didn’t see cause to remove them,”
she added.¶ “We’ll obviously look at it again this year, but as I said, we don’t have any plans at the moment,” Nuland continued.¶
White House spokesman Jay Carney also said: “We have no changes in our approach or policy to Cuba to announce or under
consideration that I’m aware of.”¶ Reports
had indicated that “high-level US diplomats” have concluded
Cuba should be taken off the terror list, which would allow Secretary of State John Kerry to
“remove a major obstacle to restoring relations” with the Spanish-speaking Caribbean island.¶ “Top
administration officials and members of Congress indicate there is a growing consensus in policy and intelligence circles that Cuba’s
support for terrorist groups has been terminated,” said the Boston Globe in a report.¶ It also said that Kerry, a Massachusetts
Democrat who has long favored improving relations with Havana, met in recent days “with officials to review the Cuba policy.”¶ The
report, however, said that US officials “emphasized that there has not been a formal assessment concluding that Cuba should be
removed from the terrorism list”.¶ Mauricio Claver-Carone, director of the Washington-based US-Cuba Democracy Political Action
Committee, said removing Cuba from the list would amount to a “scandalous” concession to the communist government. ¶ The US
State Department’s 2012 terrorism report lists Cuba, Iran, Syria and Sudan.¶ It notes the Cuban government’s links to the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and Spain’s Basque Homeland and Liberty (ETA).¶ The US says that the Castro
government has been on the terror list since the list was created in 1982, primarily because Cuba trained and armed guerrilla
movements from most Latin American nations in the 1960s and 1970s.
Keeping Cuba on the list undermines the credibility of US Foreign policy, risks
humiliation. And that’s key to normalizing relations.
Ortega Iber 4/23 – (Ismael P. Ortega Iber, Miami Herald, “Remove Cuba from list of
terrorist states,” 4/23/13, http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/23/3360612/removecuba-from-lisst-of-terrorist.html, accessed 6/30/13, IS)
As a Cuban American, I think it’s time to remove Cuba from the terrorist list. Most Americans wouldn’t be able to
determine what Cuba, Iran, Syria and Sudan have in common. They are four countries that are on the State Department’s list of
“state sponsors of terrorism.” Not only
does this designation affect our relationship with our island
neighbor, it also affects our relationship with the Western Hemisphere, and the rest of the
world, which does not see Cuba as a terrorist threat.¶ At the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia a
year ago, the rest of the Americas made it clear that without a change in our relationship with Cuba, another summit would not
happen. If we are sincere about improving our relationship with Cuba, as President Obama has maintained, then we should
reexamine our designation of Cuba.¶ Cuba has been on this list since March 1, 1982. According to a 2005 Congressional Research
Services report, at the time of Cuba’s addition to the list “numerous U.S. government reports and statements under the Reagan
administration alleged Cuba’s ties to international terrorism and its support for terrorist groups in Latin America.” Any rationale for
keeping Cuba on this list has long since disappeared.¶ By
keeping Cuba on this list we are weakening the
credibility of the entire list. Cuba has ratified all 12 international counterterrorism
conventions, and even offered to sign a bilateral agreement with the United States on
counterterrorism. Cuba also collaborates with the United States in counter-drug efforts in the
Caribbean, and this cooperation is one that the U.S. government acknowledges and praises.
Iraq was removed from the list in 1982 and again in 2004 (after having been reassigned to the list). Libya
was removed in 2006. Even North Korea was removed in 2008 (that may have been a mistake).¶ The
presence of Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism symbolizes everything that’s wrong with our approach to
Cuba. It’s based on a myth (that Cuban sponsors terrorist groups); it reinforces Cold War-era prejudices (that Cuba is an
enemy that we must isolate and oppose); it helps lock our foreign policy in stone. It prevents the United
States from taking sensible steps toward normalizing relations with Cuba. ¶
And human rights for Cuban civilians are correlated to increased US Cuban
relations.
UPI 12 – major international news agency, whose newswires, photo, news film and audio
services provided news material to thousands of newspapers, magazines and radio and
television stations for most of the twentieth century. (United Press International, “US to Cuba:
Relations Depend on Freedoms,” 7/30/12, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/07/27/USto-Cuba-Relations-depend-on-freedoms/UPI-48391343374200/, accessed 6/30/13,
Washington is willing to talk with Havana about ensuring political rights of expression if Cuba
wants to improve U.S. relations, the State Department said. ¶ The Obama administration is prepared
to "forge a new relationship" with Cuba, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Mike Hammer said after
Cuban President Raul Castro expressed an interest Thursday in starting a dialogue with Washington to mend fences. ¶ The
Castro regime must make democratic reforms and improve human rights, Hammer said. ¶ "Our
message is very clear to the Castro government," he said. "They need to begin to allow for the political
freedom of expression that the Cuban people demand and we are prepared to discuss with
them how this can be furthered." ¶ Cuba must also release U.S. government contractor Alan Gross of Potomac, Md.,
Hammer said. ¶ Gross, an international development expert, is serving 15 years in a Cuban prison after being convicted in March
2011 of crimes against the Cuban state. He was arrested in 2009 bringing satellite phones and computer equipment into Cuba while
working for the U.S. Agency for International Development on a democracy-building project. ¶ Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and
Richard Shelby, R-Ala., met with Castro in February in an unsuccessful bid to win Hammer's freedom. ¶ Gross' wife, Judy Gross, told
Politico in March she considered her husband "a pawn from a failed policy between the two governments." ¶ The United States has
not had formal diplomatic relations with Cuba since Jan. 3, 1961, and has maintained an embargo that makes it illegal for U.S.
corporations to do business with the island nation, 90 miles south of Key West, Fla. ¶ Raul Castro made his mending-fences remarks
at a ceremony in Guantanamo, Cuba, observing Cuba's National Day of Rebellion -- the anniversary of former President Fidel Castro's
July 26, 1953, uprising against dictator Fulgencio Batista, which marked the beginning of the Cuban revolution. ¶ Raul Castro is Fidel
Castro's younger brother. ¶ "The day they are ready, the table is set, and this has been communicated through the regular
diplomatic channels," Raul Castro said in remarks broadcast several times over Cuba's state-controlled media and published by the
official Cuban news agency Prensa Latina. ¶ "If they want to hold a discussion, we will do so, but on equal terms, because we are no
one's subjects, nor a colony, nor anyone's puppets," he said. ¶ Havana
is ready to discuss "the problems of
democracy, as they say, freedom of speech, human rights, the things they have invented for
years," CNN quoted him as saying. ¶ Cuba would also voice its own grievances, he said as he called for "bilateral understanding,"
Prensa Latina said. ¶ "Hostility from Washington," mainly through the embargo, has led to Cuban economic losses of more than $975
billion, the news agency said. ¶ Castro said Cuba and the United States could be adversaries on the baseball diamond but not the
geopolitical theater. ¶ "If they want confrontation, it must be in sports -- preferably baseball -- nothing else," he told a crowd
gathered for the 59th anniversary commemoration. ¶ "We must respect one another. You cannot run the world -- that's crazy,
especially on the basis of repeated lies," Castro said. ¶ Castro's remarks were not the first time he expressed a willingness to talk
with Washington. ¶ In April 2009 he said during a summit of leftist Latin American leaders in Venezuela he was willing to discuss
"everything, everything, everything" with the United States, including human rights, freedom of the press and political prisoners. ¶
During his Thursday remarks -- which CNN said appeared impromptu -- Castro said "small factions" within Cuba were "trying to lay
the groundwork so that one day what happened in Libya will happen here, what they're trying to make happen in Syria." ¶ That will
never happen in Cuba, he asserted. ¶ "Here we are, with our troops, as prepared as ever, just in case," he said, adding: "Once again I
proclaim our interest in peace. We have no interest in harming anyone, but our people will defend themselves, and we all know
what to do under any circumstance." ¶ Prominent Cuban political activist Oswaldo Paya Sardinas died Sunday in a car crash. Havana
said the driver of Sardinas' car lost control of the vehicle and hit a tree, but Paya's children said the car had been deliberately run off
of the road. ¶ Hammer in Washington pointed Thursday to Cuba's brief detention of dozens of dissidents outside Paya's funeral this
week. ¶ "The authoritarian tendencies are very evident on each and every day in Cuba," he said.
***POLITICS***
Pop- Public
Plan is popular with the public – Obama can use this for greater political
maneuvering
Boston Globe 2/09 (Boston Globe Editorial, “Cuba’s reforms pave way for new US policy, too” 2/09/13,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/02/09/cuba-reform-create-opportunity-drag-policy-intocentury/xER2NTTXGsxdLej0miHwFM/story.html, 7/1/13,)
¶ RELATIONS BETWEEN the United States and Cuba have been stuck since the United States imposed a full economic embargo in
1962, and during the election season neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney signaled much desire to change the status quo. Yet
while Americans have been looking elsewhere, significant change has come to Cuba. The communist government of the ruling
Castro brothers, Fidel and Raul, is in the midst of a slow experiment to promote economic entrepreneurship. Late last year, Cuba
instituted reforms to its immigration policies that allow Cubans to travel abroad freely and allow those who have emigrated or fled
to return home.¶ These changes, and the beginning of Obama’s second term, create an unusual opportunity to acknowledge Cuba’s
gestures and respond in a substantive way. Rather than simply extend policies that, in five decades, have failed to dislodge the
Castros, the
Obama administration has a chance to drag US policy into the 21st century.¶ The Cubangreater
contact with friends, family, and the Cuban economy now animates a younger generation of
Florida voters. Because of this trend, Obama — who performed nearly as well with Cuban-American voters as
Romney — has more maneuvering room politically.¶
American population, which has historically opposed any loosening of US policy, is no longer monolithic. Supporting
Plan Popular-Democrats
Democrats want to allow all travel to Cuba – people-to-people diplomacy key
to relations
Farr 5/1 – U.S. Representative for California's 20th congressional district (Sam, “Members of Congress ask White House to expand Cuba travel policy,”
http://www.farr.house.gov/index.php/component/content/article/37-2013-press-releases/965-members-of-congress-ask-white-house-to-expand-cuba-travel-policy, Accessed
27 June 2013
Farr (D-CA) today sent a letter signed by 59 Members of Congress to President
Obama, asking the Administration to expand its current policy for travel to Cuba. The letter encourages President
Obama to allow all categories of permissible travel to Cuba, including people-to-people travel, to be carried out under a general
license.¶ “There are no better ambassadors for democratic ideals than the American people,” said
Congressman Farr. “By including all forms of permissible travel under a general license, more Americans can engage in the kind of peopleto-people diplomacy that can promote democratic change and advance human rights.”¶ In 2009,
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Sam
Barack
President Obama announced Reaching Out to the Cuban People, a set of policy changes that fully restored the rights of Cuban-Americans to visit their families in Cuba and send
them unlimited remittances. This has resulted in the reunification of thousands of families and has provided the capital for Cubans to take advantage of economic reforms in
In 2011, President Obama took another important step by reauthorizing purposeful travel for all Americans, fostering
meaningful people-to-people interaction between American and Cuban citizens. But these trips require a specific license granted to
specialized travel service providers. Unfortunately, the licensing process has reportedly been expensive, slow,
cumbersome, and arbitrary, causing delays and – in some cases cancellations- of trips that enable Americans to exercise
Cuba and start their own businesses.¶
their right to purposeful travel to Cuba.¶ Earlier this year, Cuba removed the restrictions on most Cubans’ foreign travel, including travel to the United States, a move that the
United States and many in the international community had been pushing for.¶ The letter calls upon the President to use his executive authority to included people-to-people
travel under a general license. ¶ “A pragmatic policy of citizen diplomacy can be a powerful catalyst for democratic development in Cuba,” said Farr. “
This change is the
next step in supporting a 21st century policy of engagement in US-Cuba relations.”
Democrats push for less travel restrictions– promote democracy and human
rights
Pecquet 4/30 - Foreign affairs reporter/blogger for The Hill (Julian, “House Dems: Time to simplify travel to Cuba,” The Hill,
30 April 2013, http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/americas/297013-lawmakers-time-to-simplify-travel-to-cuba, Accessed 27 June 2013
Obama administration should make it easier for Americans to travel to Cuba by ending pre-travel
approval, 59 House Democrats wrote Tuesday in a letter to the president.¶ This month marks the fourth anniversary of
The
Obama's decision to lift all restrictions on family travel and remittances to the island; two years later, Obama allowed all Americans to participate in so-called “people-to-people”
Lawmakers now want individuals and groups to be able to
travel under a general license: instead of having to get approval before their trip, visitors to Cuba would be able to
travel without hassle but may have to produce supporting documentation upon their return that their visit met the letter of the law.¶ “There are no better
visits, educational exchanges carried out by licensed tour operators.
ambassadors for democratic ideals than the American people,” Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), who spearheaded the letter, said in a statement. “By including all forms of permissible
more Americans can engage in the kind of people-to-people diplomacy that can
promote democratic change and advance human rights.Ӧ The letter says that Cuba's decision in January to rescind restrictions
travel under a general license,
on Cubans' travel to the United States gives the administration a “predicate for doing more.”¶ “Exercising your executive authority to allow all current categories of permissible
travel, including people-to-people, to be carried out under the general license is the next logical step,” the letter says. “This action would speed the processes you have already
helping Cubans create more jobs and
opportunities to further expand their independence.”
unleashed: increasing opportunities for engagement and reconciliation, while also
Plan Popular- Republicans
Republicans support the plan – they want to end Cuba’s travel ban
Blase 4/11 – the foundress of the largest Hispanic Republican group in the nation that began
in Arizona (Dee Dee Garcia, “GOP Lawmakers have no leg to stand on slamming JayZ and Beyonce after ending fund on enforcement of the Travel Ban in Cuba,”
Mexican-American Times, 11 April 2013, http://tucsoncitizen.com/hispanic-politico/2013/04/11/gop-lawmakers-have-no-leg-to-stand-on-slamming-jayz-and-beyonce-afterending-fund-on-enforcement-of-the-travel-ban-in-cuba/, Accessed 28 June 2013
Jay-Z and Beyoncé can go ahead and get…that…dirt off their shoulders.¶ After all, the GOP
lawmakers who are attacking Jay-Z have no leg to stand on when they (GOPers) are the ones who helped to vote an end funding on
the enforcement of the Travel Ban in Cuba.
Looks like
Plan Popular-Chamber of Commerce
COC supports plan – opens trade and spreads democracy
Bogardus 10 – staff writer at the Hill (Kevin, “Chamber Raises Stakes in Cuba Travel Ban,” The Hill, 29 June 2010, http://thehill.com/businessa-lobbying/106313-chamber-raises-stakes-in-cubas-embargo-battle, Accessed 28 June 2013
Business associations are raising the lobbying stakes on legislation that would remove the
American travel ban and boost U.S. farm sales to Cuba.¶ In an unusual move, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a letter to House
Agriculture Committee members warned it could score House floor votes on the bill that the panel is marking up Wednesday. Such
letters typically aren’t sent until a day before a floor vote. ¶ “It sends a signal how seriously we are taking the bill,” said Patrick
Kilbride, the Chamber’s director of the Americas office. “This just has been considered by the Chamber as fundamental to its
advocacy message of free enterprise.Ӧ The Chamber has been a longtime advocate of opening up
trade with Cuba, believing it will boost U.S. business and spread democracy to the communist
regime. It argues the trade embargo has been a failure despite its best intentions.¶ “Instead of undermining the regime, it
has helped the regime. We think opening up trade with Cuba will help spread democracy there,” Kilbride said. ¶ In the letter
from Bruce Josten, the Chamber’s chief lobbyist, the group says it will consider scoring votes on the measure if it reaches the floor.¶ Since 2007, the Chamber has only sent two
other letters to lawmakers on Cuba-related legislation. Neither included language indicating the Chamber planned to score votes.¶ Chamber officials said there simply have not
been votes in the full House or Senate on bills dealing with Cuba for several years that rose to the level of a priority vote for the trade association.¶ The U.S. trade embargo has
been on Cuba for 50 years, and lawmakers opposed to the policy have had little success in opening it up.
Key to agenda – independently shields the link
Lichtblau 12 (Eric, New York Times, 11-29 “Chamber Competes to Be Heard in the Fiscal Debate” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/business/chamber-competes-to-be-heard-in-fiscaldebate.html?_r=0, ken)
Chamber of Commerce executives came to the
White House this week with a far more conciliatory tone, offering up suggestions to avert large budget cuts without having to raise taxes. Enlarge This Image Charles
WASHINGTON — After months of sparring with President Obama in the heat of the campaign season,
Dharapak/Associated Press Thomas J. Donohue after introducing President Obama at a Chamber of Commerce event in 2011. But Mr. Obama’s top advisers were not budging. There would be no deal on the
federal budget deficit, they told chamber executives, without higher taxes, participants said. If there were doubts about the White House’s resolve, Mr. Obama met the chamber’s chief executive afterward for an
For the United States Chamber of Commerce, long the leading business voice in
Washington, this month’s negotiations over the nation’s debt will be a key test of whether it can retain its influence and swagger in the capital even
unscheduled Oval Office chat about the showdown.
after a string of bruising political losses. Many business leaders are looking to the chamber as a bulwark against the White House’s push for higher taxes, but it is unclear if the century-old association has the clout
it once did. Other business groups seen as more open to tax increases have become players in the negotiations, exposing rifts in the private sector. The Chamber of Commerce, in the biggest voter mobilization
effort in its history, spent tens of millions of dollars in support of pro-business candidates, usually Republicans, in the Nov. 6 elections. But the results were disastrous: out of 48 House and Senate candidates that it
spent money to try to either elect or defeat, the outcome went the chamber’s way only seven times, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington research group that tracks political
spending. If the chamber was an 800-pound gorilla before the elections, “now they’re a wounded 500-pound gorilla,” said Cyrus Mehri, a Washington lawyer for U.S. Chamber Watch, a union-backed group that is
critical of the chamber’s political practices. “But
they’re still a major force to be reckoned with,” he added. As the White House looks to work out a deal with
Congress to avert hundreds of billions of dollars in automatic budget cuts at the end of the year, Mr. Obama and his top economic advisers have been meeting through the week with business leaders to push their
plan for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Obama met Wednesday with chief executives from Goldman Sachs, Coca-Cola, Yahoo and other prominent firms, and he met a day earlier with smallbusiness representatives. The president’s advisers also met with officials from the Campaign to Fix the Debt, a centrist group that has become influential in pushing for a combination of tax increases and spending
cuts. It is led by Erskine B. Bowles, a former Clinton administration official, and Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming. When Mr. Obama met two weeks ago with a dozen corporate leaders
but did not invite the Chamber of Commerce, it was widely seen as a snub of the group over its political attacks during the presidential campaign. But the chamber got its turn Monday. Jack Lew, the White House
chief of staff, and other senior economic advisers listened as chamber executives, including Thomas J. Donohue, the group’s president, and Bruce Josten, its top lobbyist, laid out their ideas for raising significant
revenue without necessarily raising taxes by expanding energy development. “They wrote it down, but where that goes, I don’t know,” Mr. Josten said in an interview. But Mr. Josten said that the White House
advisers stressed that any debt deal would have to include increased taxes at the highest brackets and that if an agreement could not be reached, they were willing to risk the automatic spending cuts — the so-
officials
led Mr. Donohue to the Oval Office for a brief session with Mr. Obama, which chamber officials described as
“positive and constructive.” White House officials would not discuss the president’s meeting with Mr. Donohue or the earlier meeting with chamber executives. An Obama
administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that “the White House does not want to go over the fiscal cliff, but at the same time, we’re not going to accept a bad deal.” The
chamber has already circulated letters in Congress, targeted crucial lawmakers, taken out ads and
prepared position papers and Internet videos intended to discourage any debt deal that it believes would deter private investment and free enterprise
called fiscal cliff option — at the end of the year. “They reiterated that they want the higher rates, and they’ll go over the cliff if they need to,” Mr. Josten said. After the meeting, White House
through higher taxes. While the chamber and its business members often proved the dominant voice on such issues in the past, the competing agendas of different business sectors have in some ways diluted the
chamber’s overall influence. The Fix the Debt campaign, for example, adopted a much higher profile than the chamber in recent weeks with its own flurry of political ads, Washington meetings and news
conferences to push its case for a balanced solution that would probably include tax increases. “There are going to be a lot of distinct voices, and we’re not simply going to throw in with any single coalition,” said
Matthew Shay, president of the National Retail Federation, a trade group that is pushing for a quick end to the debt negotiations. At the same time, Mr. Shay said “there’s no daylight between any members of the
I expect the chamber will continue
to play an enormously influential role in the debate,” he said. Chamber officials acknowledged that they were deeply
disappointed by the poor showing of the Congressional candidates they backed, particularly in the Senate. But they scoffed at the notion, discussed in Washington political and media
circles since the election, that the chamber’s political influence was waning and that the group might become marginalized in the debt negotiations as
a result. “You really think we aren’t going to have any influence?” asked Mr. Josten, the group’s lobbyist. “If that’s the case, why would the White House want to
meet with us?” he said. “My suspicion is that they know we’re going to have some influence on this. I don’t think there’s any
member of Congress out there that doubts that.”
business community” on the overall need to reach an agreement without imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in automatic cuts. “
Plan Popular-Economic Sectors
US economic sectors support the plan – want access to Cuban market
Lee et al 1/31 – Senior Production Editor (Brianna and Stephanie Hanson, “U.S.-Cuba Relations,” Council on Foreign Relations, 31 January
2013, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113, accessed 28 June 2013)
U.S. constituencies would like to resume relations. U.S. agricultural groups already deal with Cuba, and other
economic sectors want access to the Cuban market . Many Cuban-Americans were angered by
the Bush administration's strict limits on travel and remittances, though a small but vocal contingent of hard-line Cuban
exiles, many of them based in Florida, does not want to normalize relations until the Communist regime is gone. "When they're polled, the majority of
Cuban-Americans say that the embargo has failed, and support lifting the travel ban or loosening the
embargo or some steps along that continuum of liberalization and normalization," says Julia E. Sweig, CFR director of Latin American
Some
studies.
Key to agenda – contribute to campaigns
Gimpel et al 12 – professor of political science at University of Maryland (James G., Frances E. Lee [professor of
government and politics at the University of Maryland-College Park], Michael Parrott [doctoral candidate at the University of Maryland], “Business Interests and the Party
Coalitions: Industry Sector Contributions to U.S. Congressional Campaigns,” NCAPSA American Politics Workshop at American University, 7 January 2012, page 28,
http://home.gwu.edu/~dwh/gimpel_lee_parrott_workshop.pdf, Accessed 28 June 2013
relationships between economic interests and the parties are not distributed
randomly throughout the entire economy. The most partisan sectors are greatly concentrated in
a relatively small share of broad industry classifications. Expansive parts of the U.S. economy
employing millions of people remain undefined by partisan cleavages, including most retail trades and nearly all
Differing types of
service sectors outside of finance, insurance, and real estate. To return to the question of the party polarization of economic interests in the U.S., only around half the
sectors that are consistently active in campaign contributions exhibit any partisan preference. Of those that do, these alignments
evidently have much to do with the parties’ diverging issue positions on energy issues and other labor and regulatory controversies.
AT: Cuba Lobby Powerful
Cuba Lobby is small- has no political weight - easing of travel ban proves no
backlash
(William Vidal, On Two Shores, “The Cuba Lobby represents itself, not the Cuban-American
community,” 4/12/13, http://ontwoshores.com/?p=2088, accessed 6/29/13 , IS)
Must-read article by William Leogrande on Foreign Policy about The Cuba Lobby in DC, and their influence over Washington. I
have a couple issues with this article:¶ 1) the headline “Castro-hating right wing”. To clarify, they’re not the only ones
who hate Castro. An overwhelming majority of Cuban-Americans have no love for Fidel and Raul, and most of us are not right-wing.¶
2) It
depicts the Cuba Lobby as the most powerful lobbying group in America. They are not.
Their PAC raised only $500,000 last election cycle, almost a 40% drop from what they raised in
2008, and is ranked 1,206 out of all PACs in campaign contribution amounts by OpenSecrets.org.
They are not drawing in new donors who actually care about maintaining the embargo, only donors who care
about gaining access to our Cuban-American members of Congress. Their influence is directly
proportional to salience and urgency (or completely lack thereof) of Cuba policy within foreign policy circles. In other words, in the
list of foreign policy priorities our country faces, Cuba ranks very low, and any fruit borne of
reforms implemented today will not be seen for many years. So in the cost-benefit analysis that goes on in
every DC bureaucrats head, the immediate cost of having the insufferable Mario Diaz-Balart or Mauricio Claver-Carone jamming
their noses up your ass and screaming “communist apologists!” through the halls of Capitol Hill, even if they can’t really do anything
to you, is usually higher than any benefit that may come from pushing for changes in Cuba policy. Meanwhile, they’re support in
both the Cuban-American and larger American communities has been steadily plumeting over the past decade. The minute Cuba
becomes a half-way real priority for the Administration or State Department, you will see the Cuba Lobby’s “influence” drop to a
level on par with their OpenSecrets ranking.
Plan Unpopular-Republicans
Republicans oppose travel to Cuba –Jay-Z and Beyoncé trip
Tidsall 4/8 - assistant editor of the Guardian and a foreign affairs columnist (Simon, “Time for the U.S. and Cuba to Kiss and Make Up,” CNN, 8 April 2013,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/opinion-simon-tisdall-cuba, accessed 25 June 2013
Right-wing U.S. Republicans are up in arms over Cuba again. Their ostensible cause for concern
is last week's visit to the island by Beyoncé and Jay-Z, who were photographed in Havana,
apparently celebrating their wedding anniversary.
Republicans won’t lift the travel embargo – plan will be a fight
All Things Expounded 12 ([Blog Powered by WordPress], “The Republican Party Platform and the Cuban Embargo,” 7 October 2012,
http://www.allthingsexpounded.com/2012/10/the-republican-party-platform-and-the-cuban-embargo/, accessed 27 June 2013
Republican Party’s 2012 Platform states that they will not lift “trade, travel, and financial sanctions” until
Cuba’s government reflects “the principles codified in U.S. law“.
The
Plan Unpop-Key Congresspeople
Menendez opposes the plan
Manjarres 3/28 – Managing Editor at the Shark Tank (Javier, “FL Democrat Breaks From Wasserman Schultz and Others-‘Lift
the U.S.-Cuban Embargo,’” Shark Tank, 28 March 2013, http://shark-tank.net/2013/03/28/fl-democrat-breaks-from-wasserman-schultz-and-others-lift-the-u-s-cuban-embargo/,
Accessed 27 June 2013
Cuba-Democracy PAC held its annual fundraising luncheon in Miami, Florida, where politicos and politicians put their party politics
aside, in an effort to show their united support for a ‘free Cuba.’ In attendance to the pro-embargo,
A few weeks back, the
anti-Castro event were Senator Menendez and Rep. Joe Garcia, as well as Republican Senators Marco Rubio, Ted
Cruz, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart.
Menendez Key
Menendez is key – amplifies the link
Reuters 5/6 (“Influential U.S. Senator Offers Bill to Arm Syria Rebels,” Thompson Reuters Foundation, 6 May 2013, http://www.trust.org/item/20130506192700y0wjd, Accessed 27 June 2013)
Senator Robert Menendez, the chairman of the influential Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, introduced a bill on Monday that would provide weapons to some vetted groups of Syrian rebels.
WASHINGTON, May 6 (Reuters) - U.S.
Rubio Key
Rubio’s key on foreign policy – magnifies the link
Bangor Daily News 12 ([Maine news, sports, politics and election results, and obituaries], “The 50 most powerful Republicans (including Collins and
Snowe), according to Foreign Policy,” 26 August 2012, http://bangordailynews.com/2012/08/26/politics/the-50-most-powerful-republicans-including-collins-and-snoweaccording-to-foreign-policy/, Accessed 27 June 2013
Rubio, senator, Fla.¶ The freshman senator from Florida might be best known as one of Romney’s (former) potential picks
for the VP slot, but Marco Rubio has also emerged as a foreign-policy player in his own right. Fluent in Spanish and a
member of the Select Committee on Intelligence as well as the Foreign Relations Committee,
Marco
Rubio has made trips to Cuba, Haiti, Colombia, Libya, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Observers closely eyed a foreign-policy speech Rubio gave at the Brookings Institution in April, in
Rubio has
also aligned himself with the likes of John McCain (supporting a more active U.S. role in Libya, for instance) and George W. Bush (insisting that
the United States can’t rely on the United Nations to deal with Syria and Iran). But Rubio, whose parents emigrated from Cuba, holds relatively
moderate views on immigration — he has floated an alternative to the Dream Act that would grant legal status to some children of undocumented
immigrants — opening a rift with more conservative members of the GOP. According to at least one fellow senator, Joe Lieberman, I, Conn., Rubio is a
“workhorse” when it comes to foreign policy.
which he named neoconservative Robert Kagan’s book “The World America Made” as important in shaping his view of U.S. responsibilities on the global stage.
Cruz Key
Cruz is key to agenda – magnifies the link
Fabian 4/2 – Political Editor at Fusion at ABC News (Jordan, “Why Ted Cruz Is Holding Out on Immigration Reform,” ABC News, 2 April 2013,
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/immigration-reform-senator-ted-cruz-conservative-holdout/story?id=18864224#.UcyKnhaE6JU, Accessed 27 June 2013
Cruz has quickly become an influential conservative voice in Congress and he has
already attracted 2016 presidential buzz. Latino groups have also closely watched how Cruz, the son of a Cuban immigrant father and one of
Elected just last November,
two Hispanic Republicans in the Senate, handles the issue. His standing in the party has led immigration-reform proponents to covet his support for a reform package.
Ros-Lehtinen Key
Ros-Lehtinen is key – enlarges the link
Sun Sentinel 12 ([major daily newspaper of Broward and South Palm Beach counties], “Ros-Lehtinen among D.C.'s ‘Most Influential Women,’” 13 July 2012,
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-07-13/news/fl-ileana-ros-lehtinen-top-hat-20120713_1_national-journal-dcs-influential-women, Accessed 27 June 2013
Ros-Lehtinen, South Florida's longest-serving member of Congress, is on a new list of
Washington's 25 most influential women.¶ National Journal consulted 174 political insiders to compile the list.¶ The Miami-Dade
Republican, who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, "embodies many of
the elements of the South Florida district that she represents, complete with an almost manic energy and a conservative zeal that she
Ileana
tempers with her fight for gay rights," National Journal says.
Diaz-Balart
Diaz-Balart is powerful in Congress – independently magnifies the link –
especially in Latin American talks
Martinez 12 – journalist and editor (Laura, “Telemundo’s Reporter Without Borders,” Multichannel News, 1 October 2012,
http://www.multichannel.com/content/telemundos-reporter-without-borders/139543, accessed 27 June 2013
Díaz-Balarts are well known in Florida as an influential family with strong ties to politics.
Lincoln Díaz- Balart is a former U.S. congressman; youngest brother Mario currently serves as one.¶ Lincoln
and Mario Díaz-Balart are strong Republicans and staunch opponents of the Castro regime , which comes
The
as a bit of an irony, considering the brothers were actually related to Fidel Castro by marriage at one time. [A sister of Rafael Díaz-Balart Sr., Mirta, was Castro’s first wife. They
Díaz-Balart’s father, Rafael Díaz-Balart y Gutiérrez, was a prominent Cuban
politician, businessman and diplomat; a man who was larger than life and instilled his four sons with a sense of passion for work.
married in 1948, had a son and divorced in 1955.]¶
Plan Unpopular- Cuba Lobby
The Cuba Lobby has huge sway - backlash will block other legislation
Leogrande 4/11 - the Dean of the American University School of Public Affairs and frequent
publisher and expert on Latin America. Dean LeoGrande holds a B.A., an M.A., and a Ph.D, all
from Syracuse University. (William M. Leogrande, Foreign Policy, “The Cuba Lobby,” 4/11/13,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/11/the_cuba_lobby_jay_z?wp_login_redirect=
0, accessed 6/28/13, IS)
Policy toward Cuba is frozen in place by a domestic political lobby with roots in the electorally pivotal state of
Florida. The Cuba Lobby combines the carrot of political money with the stick of political
denunciation to keep wavering Congress members, government bureaucrats, and even presidents
in line behind a policy that, as President Obama himself admits, has failed for half a century and is supported by virtually no other countries. (The last time it
came to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly, only Israel and the Pacific island of Palau sided with the United States.) Of course, the news at this point is not that a Cuba Lobby
exists, but that it astonishingly lives on — even during the presidency of Obama, who publicly vowed to pursue a new approach to Cuba, but whose policy has been stymied thus
the Cuba Lobby isn’t one organization but a loose-knit conglomerate of exiles, sympathetic
members of Congress and nongovernmental organizations, some of which comprise a self-interested industry nourished by the flow of “democracy
far. Like the China Lobby,
promotion” money from the U.S. Agency for International Development. And like its Sino-obsessed predecessor, the Cuba Lobby was launched at the instigation of conservative
Republicans in government who needed outside backers to advance their partisan policy aims. In the 1950s, they were Republican members of Congress battling New Dealers in
the Truman administration over Asia policy. In the 1980s, they were officials in Ronald Reagan’s administration battling congressional Democrats over Central America policy. At
the Cuba Lobby’s request, Reagan created Radio Martí, modeled on Radio Free Europe, to broadcast propaganda to Cuba. He named Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the Cuban
American National Foundation, to lead the radio’s oversight board. President George H.W. Bush followed with TV Martí. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind.,
authored the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, writing the economic embargo into law so no president could change it without congressional approval.
Founded at the suggestion of Richard Allen, Reagan’s first national security adviser, CANF was the linchpin of the Cuba Lobby until Mas Canosa’s death in 1997. “No individual
had more influence over United States policies toward Cuba over the past two decades than Jorge Mas Canosa,” The New York Times editorialized. In Washington, CANF built its
reputation by spreading campaign contributions to bolster friends and punish enemies. In 1988, CANF money helped Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman defeat incumbent Sen. Lowell
Weicker, whom Lieberman accused of being soft on Castro because he visited Cuba and advocated better relations. Weicker’s defeat sent a chilling message to other members
of Congress: challenge the Cuba Lobby at your peril. In 1992, according to Peter Stone’s reporting in National Journal, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert Torricelli, seduced by
Today, the political
action arm of the Cuba Lobby is the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which hands out more
campaign dollars than CANF’s political action arm did even at its height — more than $3 million since 1996. In Miami, conservative Cuban--Americans long have
the Cuba Lobby’s political money, reversed his position on Havana and wrote the Cuban Democracy Act, tightening the embargo.
presumed to be the sole authentic voice of the community, silencing dissent by threats and, occasionally, violence. In the 1970s, anti-Castro terrorist groups such as Omega 7
and Alpha 66 set off dozens of bombs in Miami and assassinated two Cuban-Americans who advocated dialogue with Castro. Reports by Human Rights Watch in the 1990s
the Cuba Lobby
has struck fear into the heart of the foreign-policy bureaucracy. The congressional wing of the
Cuba Lobby, in concert with its friends in the executive branch, routinely punishes career civil
servants who don’t toe the line. One of the Cuba Lobby’s early targets was John “Jay” Taylor, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, who was
documented the climate of fear in Miami and the role that elements of the Cuba Lobby, including CANF, played in creating it. Like the China Lobby,
given an unsatisfactory annual evaluation report in 1988 by Republican stalwart Elliott Abrams, then assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, because Taylor
reported from Havana that the Cubans were serious about wanting to negotiate peace in southern Africa and Central America. In 1993, the Cuba Lobby opposed the
appointment of President Bill Clinton’s first choice to be assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Mario Baeza, because he once had visited Cuba. Clinton dumped
Baeza. Two years later, Clinton caved in to the lobby’s demand that he fire National Security Council official Morton Halperin, who was the architect of the successful 1995
migration accord with Cuba that created a safe, legal route for Cubans to emigrate to the United States. One chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cuba told me he stopped
sending sensitive cables to the State Department altogether because they so often leaked to Cuba Lobby supporters in Congress. Instead, the diplomat flew to Miami so he could
report to the department by telephone. During George W. Bush’s administration, the Cuba Lobby completely captured the State Department’s Latin America bureau (renamed
the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs). Bush’s first assistant secretary was Otto Reich, a Cuban-American veteran of the Reagan administration and favorite of Miami hardliners. Reich had run Reagan’s “public diplomacy” operation demonizing opponents of the president’s Central America policy as communist sympathizers. In 2002, Bush’s
undersecretary for arms control and international security, John Bolton, made the dubious charge that Cuba was developing biological weapons. When the national intelligence
officer for Latin America, Fulton Armstrong, (along with other intelligence community analysts) objected to this mischaracterization of the community’s assessment, Bolton and
When Obama was elected president, promising a “new beginning” in
relations with Havana, the Cuba Lobby relied on its congressional wing to stop him . Sen. Robert
Menendez, D-N.J., the senior Cuban-American Democrat in Congress and now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, vehemently
opposes any opening to Cuba. In March 2009, he signaled his willingness to defy both his
president and his party to get his way. Menendez voted with Republicans to block passage of a
$410 billion omnibus appropriations bill, needed to keep the government running, because it relaxed
the requirement that Cuba pay in advance for food purchases from U.S. suppliers and eased
restrictions on travel to the island. To get Menendez to relent, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had to
promise in writing that the administration would consult Menendez on any change in U.S.
policy toward Cuba.
Reich tried repeatedly to have him fired.
Cuban Lobby group opposes travel reform Jilani 12 – former Communications and Outreach Coordinator for United Republic and the
former Senior Reporter-Blogger for ThinkProgress. His work has also appeared in outlets
including Salon and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He graduated from the University of
Georgia in 2009. (Zaid Jilani, Republic Report, “It’s Not Just Ozzie Guillen: How The Cuba Lobby
Paralyzes U.S. Policy,” 4/10/12, http://www.republicreport.org/2012/ozzie-guillen-cuba-lobbyparalyzes-us-policy/, accessed 6/20/13, IS)
This morning it was abruptly announced that Ozzie Guillen, the first-year manager of the Miami Marlins, would be suspended for
five games following comments he made where he offered some mild praise for former Cuban leader Fidel Castro.¶ Guillen was
forced to take the unpaid suspension after he came under intense verbal attack from area interest groups. The barrage that the
Miami Marlins manager is an example of a powerful interest group that has virtually paralyzed US-Cuba relations in the nation’s
capital.¶ Informally referred to by leading writers as the “Cuba Lobby,” this
tight-knit group of Political Action
Committees (PACs), social organizations, and the lawmakers allied to them have successfully
maintained a failed diplomatic freeze, travel ban, and embargo between the United States
and Cuba for decades.¶ By exerting its influence, this lobby forces Washington politicians to
ignore American public opinion at large. A 2009 Gallup Poll found that 60 percent of
Americans favor restoring full diplomatic relations with Cuba, and a majority of Americans wanted to see an
end to the embargo as well. Figures and political groups with as varying politics as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Pope, and
former president Jimmy Carter have all called for ending the unilateral sanctions.¶ The
powerful Cuba lobby, based in
the crucial political swing state of Florida, exerts its influence largely through being a powerful
political spender. The U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, for example PAC spent a million dollars in 2008, and has already spent a
quarter of a million dollars during this election cycle. In 2008 and 2010, the majority of the PAC’s funds went to Democrats, but
during the 2012 cycle the organization is spending more heavily in favor of Republicans. It’s treasurer is Gus Machado, a Floridan
wealthy auto dealer who regularly raises millions of dollars for charities in the area.¶ At a fancy gala in 2010, the organization
brought together leading congressional Democrats and Republicans to support the US-Cuba embargo. “When it comes to the topic
of Cuba, first comes Cuba and then comes the party,” said Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a leading embargo proponent, at the event.
The PAC is the largest foreign policy-related PAC spender according to the Center for Responsive Politics.¶ Although it is frequently
referred to as the “Cuba Lobby,” there is little evidence that the policies that the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC and related
organizations and individuals help the Cuban people or advance U.S. interests in Cuba. Their hard line has not ended the Castro
regime and its abuses, or helped advance the welfare of Cubans. Instead, through campaign donations and campaigns of
intimidation, this lobby has effectively paralyzed U.S. policy.