1
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Case**
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Answers to Advantages
2
3
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
AT: Relations
4
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Alt Causes
Snowden’s travels to Cuba strain US Cuba relations
Forero, Washington Post, 6/23
(Juan, the Washington Post, “Snowden may head to Latin America”, EB)
The three Latin American countries said to be helping Edward Snowden flee from American authorities
are united in their opposition to the Obama administration and pursue foreign policy objectives
designed to counter U.S. influence. As Snowden, the intelligence contractor who disclosed documents
about U.S. surveillance programs, arrived in Moscow from Hong Kong on Sunday, Russian media
reported that he was booked on a flight to the Cuban capital Havana, and from there on to Caracas,
Venezuela. By Sunday afternoon, Ecuador’s foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, said via his Twitter account
that his government had received an asylum request from Snowden. Ecuador’s embassy in London is
already hosting Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group that published reams of
classified U.S. documents. WikiLeaks, which is also assisting Snowden, said in a brief statement that
Snowden “is bound for the Republic of Ecuador via a safe route for the purpose of asylum.” WikiLeaks
said that once in Ecuador, Snowden’s request for political asylum would be processed. The Ecuadoran
government of President Rafael Correa, a populist who expelled the U.S. ambassador from Quito in
2011, did not confirm the WikiLeaks account. But his administration, which has sought a greater role for
the small country on the international stage, has reveled in the attention it has received since Assange
holed up in its London embassy. “Assange has been in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for a year,”
Patiño said in a Thursday tweet. “We will not faint in this fight for liberty.” Analysts who closely follow
the region said it would make sense for the former contractor to the National Security Agency to wind
up in Venezuela or Ecuador. Both countries are led by self-styled leftist leaders who are publicly hostile
to the Obama administration and position themselves to oppose U.S. policies in this region and beyond.
“Their foreign policy is based on being the anti-United States, and so this is consistent with that
posture,” said Carl Meacham, director of the Americas program at Washington’s Center for Strategic
and International Studies. “They try, at every stop, to point out the problems they have with U.S.
foreign policy.” In Venezuela, the new president, Nicolás Maduro, a former foreign minister, has
suggested that the United States had a hand in the death of Hugo Chávez, who led the country for 14
years and frequently accused Washington of hatching assassination plots against him. Chávez died in
March after a long battle with cancer. Chávez, like Correa, expelled the U.S. ambassador from
Venezuela. “The different elite groups that represent the United States government and its imperial
policies will have to recognize that in Venezuela there’s a revolution,” Maduro said earlier this month.
“They will have to accept our system, as they had to with Vietnam and other countries.” Ecuador’s
relations with Washington have also been strained, with Correa frequently critical of American policies
in Latin America and eager to form alliances with U.S. adversaries such as Iran. Still, Ecuador has an
ambassador in Washington, and the United States last year appointed Adam E. Namm as ambassador in
Quito.
Guantanamo Bay is hurting the U.S.’s international image
Poll, columnist for the Atlantic, 07
(10/1/07 The Atlantic, “Guantanamo's Shadow” http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/10/guantanamosshadow/306212/ 6/29/13 MG)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
5
“Nothing has hurt America’s image and standing in the world—and nothing has undermined the global effort to combat nihilistic
terrorism—than the brutal torture and dehumanizing actions of Americans in Abu Ghraib and in other prisons (secret or otherwise).
America can win the fight against terrorism only if it acts in ways consistent with the values for which it stands; if its behavior descends
to the level employed by the terrorists, then we have all become them instead of us.” ¶ “Gitmo has hurt the US in two
different ways. At the strategic level, it has undercut the U.S. case around the world that we represent
a world view and a set of values that all can admire, even those who do not wish to replicate our
system and society in their own countries. Gitmo has become a symbol for cruelty and inhumanity
that is repugnant to a wide sector of the world community and a powerful tool that al Qaeda can use
to damage US interest and recruit others to its cause. At the tactical level, Gitmo deludes many in the US, an never
more than the senior leaders of the Bush Administration, into believing that harsh interrogation techniques can produce good
intelligence and is a necessary tool in fighting terrorist. This 'truth' spread from Gitmo to Iraq and we have paid a horrible price for it.Ӧ
“It has hurt America disastrously. The so-called global war on terrorism depends fundamentally on
America's moral authority, so that other nations will want to cooperate with us. Guantanamo has
become a vibrant symbol of American exceptionalism, but this exceptionalism is unwanted around
the world.”¶ “this one is so basic. i speak as a republican so this is not a partisan comment. the founders would be rightly ashamed
of us. we have forgotten, as truman and eisenhower never did, that america's power is as much about what it stands for as for its hard
power characteristics. this has all been put in the worst kind of peril by Gitmo.” ¶ “The controversies that have surrounded the system
have outweighed any benefit. The main reason for locating the facility at Guantanamo—to attempt to keep it out of the reach of
anyone's legal system—was never justifiable.”¶ “The Guantanamo system has hurt the U.S. and our fight against Al Qaeda. We have
abandoned the moral high ground and, through our actions, have become one of the principle recruiting agents for Islamic
extremism.”¶ “Our strongest asset internationally was our reputation and credibility on human rights. We have squandered that.” ¶
“Hurt, on balance, because it has severely damaged our moral case in the world, which we have to have in order to rally support for
combating Al Qaeda.”¶ “Both in the obvious public relations way, worldwide, and quite directly, in showing Al Qaeda that we can very
easily and quickly be seduced into wild overreactions. That is just what Osama Bin Laden hoped. Since it worked so well, he has an
incentive to repeat."¶ “It has done enormous damage to our reputation and soft power.”
US needs to work with china and India and properly address issues in Latin America
because current policy is insufficient
CFR ’08
(CFR: Us-Latin-American relations, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/us-latin-america-relations/p16279, May
2008, EB)
This report makes clear that the era of the United States as the dominant influence in Latin America is
over. Countries in the region have not only grown stronger but have expanded relations with others,
including China and India. U.S. attention has also focused elsewhere in recent years, particularly on
challenges in the Middle East. The result is a region shaping its future far more than it shaped its past. At
the same time Latin America has made substantial progress, it also faces ongoing challenges. Democracy
has spread, economies have opened, and populations have grown more mobile. But many countries
have struggled to reduce poverty and inequality and to provide for public security. The Council on
Foreign Relations established an Independent Task Force to take stock of these changes and assess their
consequences for U.S. policy toward Latin America. The Task Force finds that the long-standing focus on
trade, democracy, and drugs, while still relevant, is inadequate. The Task Force recommends reframing
policy around four critical areas—poverty and inequality, public security, migration, and energy
security—that are of immediate concern to Latin America's governments and citizens. The Task Force
urges that U.S. efforts to address these challenges be done in coordination with multilateral
institutions, civil society organizations, governments, and local leaders. By focusing on areas of mutual
concern, the United States and Latin American countries can develop a partnership that supports
regional initiatives and the countries' own progress. Such a partnership would also promote U.S.
objectives of fostering stability, prosperity, and democracy throughout the hemisphere.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
6
Alt Cause- Snowden Crisis
Sabatani, Senior Director of Policy at the Americas Society/ Council of the Americas,
13,
(Christopher,6/28/2013, Fox News Latino, “Ecuador and Snowden: Really?”, htt
p://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2013/06/28/ecuador-and-snowden-really/,
6/29/13) GM.
As we wait to hear Ecuador’s decision on whether to grant asylum to Edward Snowden, the 29-yearold contractor who leaked the details of the U.S. National Security Agency surveillance program, two
questions loom large: Why would Ecuador do it? And will it? ¶ First the why. Snowden’s request was
based on Ecuador’s offering of asylum to the founder and director of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, who
had been accused of rape in Sweden and is now holed up in the Ecuadoran embassy in London.
Leaving aside the question of why Ecuador would offer asylum to an accused rapist just because he
had posted secret U.S. documents and cables leaked to the web based NGO dedicated to
transparency, the thinking among the Snowden supporters was that Ecuador loved to stick it the
United States, and would welcome the opportunity to do it again for Snowden. ¶ Clearly, Ecuador’s
voluble, erratic, populist president, Rafael Correa, delights in standing up to the 'gringos.' Shortly after
he was elected in 2006, he terminated a U.S. airbase in Ecuador that monitored and interdicted drug
traffickers, kicked out the then-U.S. ambassador for information revealed in the Wikileaks, and claimed
that the U.S.’s development program is seeking to undermine him politically. ¶ In reality there’s little
domestic political benefit to these anti-U.S. actions. According to public opinion surveys, close to 80
percent of Ecuadoreans have positive views of the United States. Where it does play well is
internationally. Like his now-deceased mentor, former President of Venezuela Hugo Chávez, President
Correa has ambitions that extend far beyond his country’s borders to become a world leader of the
progressive, anti-imperialist left. When it offered Assange asylum, Correa presented the offer as
motivated by his defense of freedom of expression.¶ The irony couldn’t be richer. In Ecuador, Assange
and Snowden would have been quickly arrested and packed off to jail for their activities. Just two
weeks before Snowden asked for asylum the Ecuadoran National Assembly approved a law—
proposed by the president—that will chill freedom of expression and limit what journalists can say and
write. According to Correa, the law will “guarantee for the people that information which is published
by the media is true.” ¶
7
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
China Fill In
China has passed the US and taken over Asian markets for the worse
Larfargue ‘06
(François, China Perspectives, “China’s Presence in Latin America,” http://chinaperspectiv
es.revues.org/3053, Pg 22-33, EB)
China’s presence has upset the economic and geostrategic balance in the region. These massive
investments have provoked a real debate across Latin America, where governments fear their
countries may be confined to the role of providing agricultural and mineral raw materials. The figures
speak volumes: three quarters of Argentina’s exports to China consist of agricultural products. China is
the main customer for soya beans, buying 45% of the total exported; Thailand comes next with 13% and
Spain with 7%. And when it comes to Brazil’s exports to China, 37% consist of agricultural products. The
dependence of the Latin American countries is undeniable. China is the destination for 70% of the iron
ore, 47% of the lead and 37% of the copper exported by Peru, 33% of the pewter exported by Bolivia
and 16% of the copper leaving Chile. Far from allowing development, trade with China tends over the
long term to weaken the Latin American economies. China reinforces the rentier attitude in these
countries. The appreciating prices for raw materials22 and the growth rates in Chile (5.9% in 2004 and
then 5.1% in 2005) or Argentina (9.2% in 2005) do little to encourage people to diversify their
production. The opening up of trade is the root of many disappointments. Imports from China swamp
the local markets, a situation that might be aggravated by the creation of a bilateral free-trade area.
The sometimes-unfair competition from Chinese goods has also been denounced. In 2005, several
governments including Brazil and Argentina did not hesitate to employ anti-dumping measures against
textiles and toys. Beijing’s trading deficit with Latin America is fairly quickly absorbed. Brazil’s trading
surplus with China has been considerably reduced, falling from US$5 billion in 2004 to US$1.48 billion
the following year. On top of everything, Latin American countries are up against Chinese competition
in foreign markets, especially in the United States. Between 2003 and 2005, with the end of the
Multifibre Agreement (MFA), China’s share in US textile imports doubled, increasing from 25% to 56%.¶
23It is also worth noting that recriminations against Chinese investors and their management methods
are rising sharply. Brazilian workers at the Gree Electric Appliances factory, a Chinese investment in
Manaus, complain of excessive production rates and insensitivity to social etiquette. There are many
such examples.Inter-American Development Bank, “The Emergence of China, Opportunities and
Challenges for Latin Am (...)¶ 24Even so, a study by the Inter-American Development Bank sets out to be
reassuring: it considers that Latin American economies are not endangered by direct Asian competition.
Quite the contrary: China appears to offer a potential export market, especially for Brazil. Moreover,
China is the target for a third of Brazil’s foreign investments, including those by Brasmotor and Embraco
Snowflake, producers of domestic appliances, and by Sabó and Marcopolo, makers of cars and buses
respectively. The Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer has also embarked on a joint venture with
China Aviation Industry Corporation, to produce in Harbin the ERJ 145 regional transport aircraft. China
is denied the status of market economy by the EU and the United States because of its impenet (...)¶
25Thus, it may be an exaggeration to see in these Chinese investments only the behaviour of an
economic predator, as the United States frequently asserts. As evidence of this bilateral
rapprochement, in November 2004, Brazil, Argentina, Peru and Chile awarded to China the status of
market economy, a recognition still withheld by the United States and the European Union. Beijing is
asking its main trading partners to make this acknowledgement, in order to defend itself against antidumping proceedings that governments may bring against it25.¶ Washington’s distrust¶ 26 US Senate
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
8
report “China’s role in Latin America” 2005; or again, Evans Ellis, “ US national securit (...)in the United
States, most reports and assessments devoted to China’s presence in Latin America come to the same
conclusion. Beijing is a real threat, in three areas, political, diplomatic and military.¶ Latin America
without the United States?¶ 27 By the start of this year, only Salvador still had troops in Iraq (nearly 400
men).¶ 27Within a few years, following the elections of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela (1998) and Lula Da
Silva in Brazil (2002), most Latin American countries elected governments of the populist left, with
mostly hostile attitudes to American policy; their leaders include Nestor Kirchner in Argentina (2003),
Tabaré Vasquez in Uruguay (2004), Evo Morales in Bolivia (2005) and Michelle Bachelet in Chile (2005).
In particular, the victory of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua last November perplexes the United States, which
dreads even the thought of any lessening of its influence in the Latin American continent. US fears are
all the more justified because, since September 11th 2001, the United States has paid scant attention
to Latin America. On the political front, China’s presence erodes the influence of Washington, whose
growing isolation is evident. Only Nicaragua, Honduras, the Dominican Republic and Salvador joined the
United States-led coalition to fight in Iraq. Latin American countries are no longer afraid to defy
Washington; and they see in China a more conciliatory partner than the IMF. The point is illustrated by
Bolivia’s decision to follow Ecuador’s example in nationalising its hydrocarbon sector. China will be
taking over the American and European investments. In 2005, the United States imported 12% of its oil
from Mexico, 11% from Venezuela and 3% from Braz (...)¶ 28On the oil front, Latin America provides
more than a quarter of US imports28; but they have had to reduce their purchases from Venezuela
because of President Chávez’ policies. Relations between Caracas and Washington are on the slide.
Chávez is seeking to create a common front against what he calls North American imperialism. His
rhetoric is reflected in closer relations with governments condemned by Washington, such as Belarus
and Iran.At present, the United States buys 60% of Venezuela’s oil exports. China, being a major
investor, may enable Venezuela to rid itself of US influence. But Chávez looks well beyond the function
of supplying hydrocarbons. He sees a political role for himself on the international stage. In October
2006, Venezuela made a bid―with China’s support―for one of the non-permanent seats on the UN
Security Council―in vain, however. Venezuela fought a bitter battle with Guatemala (which had support
from Washington)―and Panama won the election.¶ 30 In 2005, the United States imported 12% of its oil
from Mexico, 11% from Venezuela and 3% from Braz (...)¶ 31 In April 2006, a deal was signed between
Venezuela and several Nicaraguan municipalities led by the (...)¶ 30And China will probably be asked to
deliver arms to Caracas, following in the footsteps of Spain (due to supply transport aircraft and
corvettes) and Russia (Sukhoi fighter planes). Chávez’ self-confidence has been rewarded by the links
forged with China. His project, the “Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas” is designed to strengthen
co-operation between economies in the region. In June 2005, Venezuela concluded an alliance known as
Petrocaribe30 with 13 Caribbean states, enabling it to support socialist municipalities in Salvador and
Nicaragua31 and to contribute to the popularity of left-wing movements. Similarly, Cuba has achieved
oil independence thanks partly to its own production (which covers half the island’s needs), and partly
to deliveries from Venezuela. Meanwhile, the region’s two other powers, Mexico and Brazil, are the
focus for real attention from Beijing.¶ 31In 2001, the Sinatex textile company, a subsidiary of China
Worldbest Group, was established in Obregón in Mexico. This is China’s most significant investment in
the country to date. Bilateral trade, still limited, is growing fast. By 2004, the volume of commercial
exchanges had risen to US$7.112 billion, 44% up on the previous year. The political closeness between
Mexico and Washington, and the ban on foreign enterprises investing in the oil sector, have the effect of
discouraging joint projects, at least for the present.¶ 32With Brazil, China has formed a real partnership
since 1986 in the space sector. The two countries have pushed ahead with the China-Brazil Earth
Resources Satellite (CBERS) programme. The highlight of this joint venture was the launch in October
1999 of the CBERS satellite (known in China as Zong guo Zi Yuan) designed to collect meteorological
information. In October 2003, China went ahead with the launch of a second satellite (Zi-Yuan-2), the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
9
technical specifications of which have not been disclosed. The launches of two new satellites, CBERS-3
and 4 are planned for 2008 and 2010. This Sino-Brazilian collaboration extends to the energy field, with
Brazil now planning to supply China with uranium to fuel its nuclear power stations.¶ 33Lastly, Beijing’s
presence in the region seriously compromises the plan for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)
promoted by President Bush. In November 2006, at the Mar del Plata summit, the 34 participants were
unable to reach any agreement. Latin-American governments considered Washington’s concessions
too meagre. For its part, Beijing is proposing to conclude preferential trade agreements. In November
2005, China and Chile signed a first bilateral free trade treaty, designed to be extended in due course to
the other countries in the region. Already 92% of Chile’s exports to China are exempt from customs
duties.
China is bad and is taking advantage of Latin America
Gardner and Grudgings, ‘11
(Simon and Stuart, Reuters, “Analysis: Rising China threatens U.S. clout in Latin America,”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/us-latinamerica-china-idUSTRE72F19C20 110316, 3/16/11,
EB)
The $10 billion package agreed with the China Development Bank was another clear sign of China's
surging influence in Latin America, transforming the region's economies and undermining U.S.
dominance in its traditional "backyard."China will loom large over U.S. President Barack Obama's visit
to Latin America this week as he sends a message that Washington remains relevant to a region that
owes much of its robust economic health in recent years to Chinese demand.¶ ¶ In both Brazil and Chile,
the two South American countries that Obama will visit, China has recently overtaken the United States
as the number-one trade partner. Even in those countries where the United States is still the dominant
partner, China is catching up fast. It has lifted growth for years in commodity producers such as Brazil,
Argentina, Chile and Peru with its voracious demand for raw goods such as iron ore, copper, and soy.¶ ¶
More recently, it has followed up with a wave of investments and state-backed loans aimed at
expanding its access to commodities and tapping demand from Latin America's growing ranks of
consumers.¶ ¶ In doing so, China has emerged as an alternative source of funding for Latin American
countries' development in areas such as infrastructure and energy that were long dependent on
World Bank or IMF loans that came with more strings attached.¶ ¶ "It's a real opportunity for Latin
America if they play it right and it's a real challenge to the U.S.," said Kevin Gallagher, an international
relations professor at Boston University who co-wrote a book on China in Latin America.¶ ¶ "The Chinese
are a kick in the pants for the United States to articulate a little bit more of a serious relationship with
the region. China's growing economic stake in the region may one day raise a threat to Washington's
strategic dominance too as its deep pockets bring new friends.¶ ¶ U.S. ally Colombia recently announced
it is in talks with China to build a railway linking its Atlantic and Pacific oceans, a possible alternative to
the Panama Canal that would boost trade flows with Asia. A network of new highways under
construction are due to provide direct links to five ports on Peru's Pacific coast in another sign of how
Asian economic power is reshaping regional trade patterns.¶ ¶ While still largely focused on metals and
agricultural goods, Chinese investments have begun to spread to the broader economy. China last year
became the biggest direct investor in Brazil, the region's largest economy, with about $15 billion
worth of projects ranging from a $5 billion steel plant to the purchase of electricity networks for about
$1 billion.¶ ¶ It has also built relations with U.S. nemesis Venezuela, whose firebrand President Hugo
Chavez said during a 2004 visit to China he had been a Maoist since childhood. China later launched a
$400 million communications satellite for Venezuela, reducing its dependence on U.S. and European
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
10
satellites.¶ ¶ The United States remains the main trade and investment partner for Latin America,
accounting for about 40 percent of the region's exports in 2009 compared to China's 7 percent,
according to the United Nations' Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.¶ ¶ China is
rising fast, though -- from virtually nowhere a decade ago -- and is on course to overtake the European
Union as the region's number-two trade partner by 2015.¶ ¶ That has also carried a cost for Latin
America as cheap Chinese imports flood domestic markets, provoking a growing backlash from
industries like manufacturing and textiles.¶ ¶ Mexico suffered the impact first and more deeply, but
Brazil and Argentina are increasingly feeling the pain.¶ ¶ Gallagher calculated that 94 percent of Latin
American manufacturing exports, worth more than $260 billion, were under partial or direct threat from
China.¶ ¶ Brazil's new government under President Dilma Rousseff has already taken a much cooler
stance toward China than her predecessor, aiming to address a lopsided relationship that has seen
imports of Chinese goods quintuple since 2005.¶ ¶ Tensions also surfaced with Argentina last year when
China, in apparent anger over protectionist moves, boycotted soyoil shipments for six months.¶ ¶ And
Chinese companies often face challenges winning local support for their projects in Peru, which critics
worry will cause pollution or use scarce water resources.¶ ¶ China may struggle to convert growing
economic clout into political influence in Latin America, says Michael Shifter, president of the InterAmerican Dialogue think tank in Washington.¶ ¶ " We may be entering a new phase now in the Chinese
relationship with South America, where there are ongoing concerns about Chinese policies and
practices and whether Latin America is getting the most favorable terms out of that relationship ," he
said.¶ ¶ " I think that's going to be the case for the next couple of years, which opens it up again to the
United States ."
Yes war—Chinese policy is driven by resource access
Kaplan, Atlantic Monthly Correspondent, 10
(Robert D. National Correspondent for the Atlantic Monthly, Foreign Affairs, 00157120, May/Jun2010, Vol. 89,
Issue 3, “The Geography of Chinese Power”, EBSCO Host, 6-31-13)
China's internal dynamism creates external ambitions. Empires rarely come about by design; they grow
organically. As states become stronger, they cultivate new needs and--this may seem counterintuitive-apprehensions that force them to expand in various forms. Even under the stewardship of some of the most
forgettable presidents--Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison--the United
States? economy grew steadily and quietly in the late nineteenth century. As the country traded more
with the outside world, it developed complex economic and strategic interests in far-flung places. Sometimes, as in
South America and the Pacific region, for example, these interests justified military action. The United States was
also able to start focusing outward during that period because it had consolidated the interior of the continent; the
last major battle of the Indian Wars was fought in 1890. China today is consolidating its land borders and
beginning to turn outward. China's foreign policy ambitions are as aggressive as those of the United
States a century ago, but for completely different reasons. China does not take a missionary approach to
world affairs, seeking to spread an ideology or a system of government. Moral progress in international affairs
is an American goal, not a Chinese one; China's actions abroad are propelled by its need to secure
energy, metals, and strategic minerals in order to support the rising living standards of its immense population,
which amounts to about one-fifth of the world's total.
11
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Turn
Turn – Lifting the embargo would crush US-Latin American Relations – emboldened
Cuba.
Brookes, Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, 09,
(Peter, 4/16/2009, The Heritage Foundation, “Keep the Embargo, O”, http://www
.heritage.org/research/commentary/2009/04/keep-the-embargo-o, 6/28/2013) GM.
In the end, though, it's still Fidel Castro and his brother Raul who'll decide whether there'll be a thaw in
ties with the United States -- or not.¶ And in usual Castro-style, Fidel himself stood defiant in response
to the White House proclamation, barely recognizing the US policy shift.¶ Instead, and predictably, Fidel
demanded an end to el bloqueo (the blockade) -- without any promises of change for the people who
labor under the regime's hard-line policies.¶ So much for the theory that if we're nice to them, they'll be
nice to us.¶ Many are concerned that the lack of love from Havana will lead Washington to make even
more unilateral concessions to create an opening with Fidel and the gang.¶ Of course, the big
empanada is the US economic embargo against Cuba, in place since 1962, which undoubtedly is the
thing Havana most wants done away with -- without any concessions on Cuba's part, of course.¶ Lifting
the embargo won't normalize relations, but instead legitimize -- and wave the white flag to -- Fidel's
50-year fight against the Yanquis, further lionizing the dictator and encouraging the Latin American
Left.¶ Because the economy is nationalized, trade will pour plenty of cash into the Cuban national
coffers -- allowing Havana to suppress dissent at home and bolster its communist agenda abroad.¶
The last thing we should do is to fill the pockets of a regime that'll use those profits to keep a jackboot
on the neck of the Cuban people. The political and human-rights situation in Cuba is grim enough
already. The police state controls the lives of 11 million Cubans in what has become an island prison. The
people enjoy none of the basic civil liberties -- no freedom of speech, press, assembly or association.¶
Security types monitor foreign journalists, restrict Internet access and foreign news and censor the
domestic media. The regime holds more than 200 political dissidents in jails that rats won't live in.¶ We
also don't need a pumped-up Cuba that could become a serious menace to US interests in Latin
America, the Caribbean -- or beyond. (The likes of China, Russia and Iran might also look to partner with
a revitalized Cuba.)
12
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Relations Resilient
US-Latin America Relations strong – Obama ranked as best leader
Associated Press 11
(“Which Leader Do Latin Americans Give The Highest Approval Rating?”,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/latin-american-leaders-ranking_n_1065954.html,
Accessed 6/30/13, AZ)
Latin Americans give U.S. President Barack Obama the highest approval rating for any leader in the
region. Obama is rated 6.3 on a scale of one to 10 in the survey conducted by the Chile-based
Latinobarometro polling organization. He is closely followed by Brazilian President Dilma Rouseff at 6.
Latinobarometro polled 20,000 people in 18 Latin American countries. The leader with the worst mark
is former Cuban President Fidel Castro at 4.1. Next lowest are Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua's
Daniel Ortega, who tied at 4.4. Bolivian President Evo Morales has 4.9 and Chilean leader Sebastian
Pinera got 5.1.
US-Latin American relations good – OAS meetings and policy shifts
Sweig David Rockefeller senior fellow for Latin America studies and director for Latin America studies
at the Council on Foreign Relations 12
(Julia, “Getting Latin America Right”, http://nationalinterest.org/article/getting-latin-america-right78802, Accessed 6/30/13, AZ)
In Trinidad and Tobago, Obama and Clinton acknowledged U.S. policy toward Cuba had failed and
offered to write a new chapter in the history of the two countries. Just prior to the summit, Obama
repealed some Bush-era restrictions, allowing Cuban Americans with families in Cuba unfettered travel
and remittance transfers to the island. (Later, in December 2010, he would also reinstate, in a more
limited way, a Clinton-era policy that granted so-called people-to-people travel licenses to non–Cuban
Americans.) But for the leaders gathered in Port-of-Spain, these measures proved too limited to change
the subject. As a result, Obama and Clinton still got an earful from their regional peers. Nonetheless, the
president and his deputies signaled their readiness for partnership rather than paternalism by sitting
in the room, listening to the rainbow coalition of mostly next-generation leaders, and hitting the right
notes on social inclusion and shared prosperity. More intangibly, Obama’s personal story and youth
gave his counterparts a sense that they would be able to find common ground with this president. Thus,
despite their skepticism over Cuba, the region’s leaders generally accorded Obama an assumption of
good faith. A few months later, the Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly, meeting
in Honduras, afforded Washington the chance to put some meat on the bone of its declared intention
to address the Cuba impasse. Almost fifty years earlier, the OAS had voted to suspend Cuba’s
membership at Washington’s insistence. Now Washington signaled its readiness to discuss other
members’ demands that Cuba be brought back to the collective table. Leery of the OAS as an
institution weakened by Washington’s historic dominance, Cuba played coy in public during the
backroom negotiations, insisting it had no interest in a return. Behind the scenes, however, OAS
secretary general José Miguel Insulza and Brazil’s then president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva helped
broker a deal that resulted in a unanimous vote to lift Cuba’s suspension. But the deal was predicated
on Cuba’s request for inclusion and on its compliance with democratic values enshrined in the 2001
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
13
Inter-American Democratic Charter. Though critics in Congress threatened unsuccessfully to cut off U.S.
funding for the OAS in retaliation, both the administration and the media heralded the new consensus
as a forward-looking diplomatic advance. Without giving ground on democracy, this confection gained
regional points for Washington and gave Cuba a diplomatic win it could plausibly deny having actually
sought.
Latin America Relations good – increased trade and cultural ties
Sweig David Rockefeller senior fellow for Latin America studies and director for Latin America studies
at the Council on Foreign Relations 12
(Julia, “Getting Latin America Right”, http://nationalinterest.org/article/getting-latin-america-right78802, Accessed 6/30/13, AZ)
ACCORDING TO the Congressional Research Service, trade between the United States and Latin
America grew an astounding 82 percent between 1998 and 2009, surpassing the growth rates of U.S.
commerce with Asia or Europe. In 2011 alone, U.S. exports to and imports from Latin America increased
by more than 20 percent. Every year, the United States imports more crude oil from Mexico and
Venezuela than from the entire Persian Gulf. As one Obama administration official puts it, “We do
three times more business with Latin America than with China and twice as much business with
Colombia [as] with Russia.” The United States also shares with Latin America an interest in cementing
and protecting democratic values, as well as a set of common problems—including deadly
transnational criminal threats and the mutual need to harness tomorrow’s energy resources. Cultural
and human ties are profound and growing: Latinos make up 15 percent of the U.S. population, and the
United States is now the second-largest Spanish-speaking country in the world after Mexico.
14
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
No Solvency
People in Latin America don’t trust the USFG- in the past we tried to intervene in their
affairs so lifting the embargo won’t effect relations
Vulliamy, Writer at the Guardian, 2002
(Ed, 4/21/2002, “Venezuela coup linked to Bush team,” Online:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela FG)
The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer
has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads
working in Central America at that time. Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly
removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in
the hemisphere. It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the
Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.
One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for
misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair. The Bush administration has tried to distance
itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona.
But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours. Now officials at the Organisation of
American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US
administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it,
presuming it to be destined for success. The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona
himself, began, say sources, 'several months ago', and continued until weeks before the putsch last
weekend. The visitors were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to
be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich. Reich is a right-wing Cuban-American who,
under Reagan, ran the Office for Public Diplomacy. It reported in theory to the State Department, but
Reich was shown by congressional investigations to report directly to Reagan's National Security Aide,
Colonel Oliver North, in the White House. North was convicted and shamed for his role in Iran-Contra,
whereby arms bought by busting US sanctions on Iran were sold to the Contra guerrillas and death
squads, in revolt against the Marxist government in Nicaragua. Reich also has close ties to Venezuela,
having been made ambassador to Caracas in 1986. His appointment was contested both by Democrats
in Washington and political leaders in the Latin American country. The objections were overridden as
Venezuela sought access to the US oil market. Reich is said by OAS sources to have had 'a number of
meetings with Carmona and other leaders of the coup' over several months. The coup was discussed in
some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent. On the
day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to
his office. He said the removal of Chavez was not a rupture of democratic rule, as he had resigned and
was 'responsible for his fate'. He said the US would support the Carmona government. But the crucial
figure around the coup was Abrams, who operates in the White House as senior director of the
National Security Council for 'democracy, human rights and international operations'. He was a
leading theoretician of the school known as 'Hemispherism', which put a priority on combating
Marxism in the Americas. It led to the coup in Chile in 1973, and the sponsorship of regimes and death
squads that followed it in Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and elsewhere. During the
Contras' rampage in Nicaragua, he worked directly to North. Congressional investigations found
Abrams had harvested illegal funding for the rebellion. Convicted for withholding information from the
inquiry, he was pardoned by George Bush senior. A third member of the Latin American triangle in US
policy-making is John Negroponte, now ambassador to the United Nations. He was Reagan's
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
15
ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985 when a US-trained death squad, Battalion 3-16, tortured
and murdered scores of activists. A diplomatic source said Negroponte had been 'informed that there
might be some movement in Venezuela on Chavez' at the beginning of the year. More than 100
people died in events before and after the coup. In Caracas on Friday a military judge confined five
high-ranking officers to indefinite house arrest pending formal charges of rebellion. Chavez's chief
ideologue - Guillermo Garcia Ponce, director of the Revolutionary Political Command - said dissident
generals, local media and anti-Chavez groups in the US had plotted the president's removal. 'The most
reactionary sectors in the United States were also implicated in the conspiracy,' he said.
Bad Latin American relations inevitable- they compare American leaders to Hitler,
lifting the embargo won’t change that
The Observer, Writer for the Guardian, 2006
(5/13/2006, “Chavez offers oil to Europe’s poor,” Online:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/may/14/oil.venezuela FG)
Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez arrives in London today with an extraordinary promise to offer
cut-rate heating oil for needy families in Europe, modelled on a similar campaign in the US which has
been seen partly as a bid to embarrass President George Bush. Last night Chavez also issued a
taunting obituary for the 'American empire' on the eve of a visit where he will be shunned by Downing
Street but welcomed by London Mayor Ken Livingststone. Chavez said in Vienna yesterday that the
'final hours of the North American empire have arrived ... Now we have to say to the empire: "We're
not afraid of you. You're a paper tiger."' Referring to his supply of heating to poor American families last
winter, Chavez told a meeting of political supporters: 'I'd like to do the same here in Europe.' He was
addressing an 'alternative summit' held alongside a three-day meeting of leaders from the European
Union, Latin America and the Caribbean in the Austrian capital. 'I want to humbly offer support to the
poorest people who do not have resources for central heating in winter and make sure that support
arrives,' he said. Though he said that Venezuela has two refineries in Germany and one in Britain, he did
not provide further details about how the supply scheme would work. But he said Venezuelan
ambassadors in Europe were looking into the matter. 'You Europeans can help us greatly. Your European
social networks can make sure the support arrives where it should,' Chavez told the conference. This
past winter, Venezuela delivered cut-rate oil to low-income Americans through Citgo, the Houstonbased subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company. Chavez appealed to the audience to unite
and promote social change. For example, he said, more business should be steered toward smaller
companies to the benefit of labourers in poorer regions, and that doing so would cut out intermediaries.
'We have to unite all possible movements, otherwise the world is not going to change,' he said. Chavez,
with a growing regional profile built on a mix of populist rhetoric and his country's oil wealth, has been
publicly feuding with Bush, whom he has likened to Adolf Hitler - with Tony Blair dismissed as 'the
main ally of Hitler.' While Downing Street has pointedly emphasised that Chavez's visit to Britain is
private, with no official contacts planned, London's mayor yesterday defended his decision to host a
luncheon in honour of the Venezuelan leader. Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, Livingstone
said that Chavez had been responsible for significant social reforms and called him 'the best news out of
Latin America in many years.' Dismissing human rights groups' concerns about Venezuela's treatment of
political opponents, Livingstone said: 'He's won 10 elections for his party in the last decade and he's
pushed through a whole programme of social reform. 'Venezuela was like a lot of those old Latin
American countries - a small elite of super-rich families who basically stole the national resources. He's
now driven a new economic order through, you've got for the first time healthcare for poor people,
illiteracy has been eradicated.' Chavez is scheduled to begin his visit with an address on his social
reforms and a meeting with supporters at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London today.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
16
Tomorrow, he will meet left-wing Labour MPs and trade union officials and hold a joint news conference
with Livingstone at City Hall.
Lifting the embargo doesn’t solve for other problems with Latin American relationsthey still have a lot of leftover animosity from the Bush era
Carmona, Member of the International Relations committee in Brazil, 2007
(Ronaldo, 4/6/2011, “Patriotic and Anti-Imperialist Trends in Latin America,” Online:
http://politicalaffairs.net/patriotic-and-anti-imperialist-trends-in-latin-america/ FG)
During those five tumultuous days, in which Bush touched down in Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia,
Guatemala and Mexico, all of Latin America, and especially those countries he deigned to visit,
became the stage for huge protests, popular manifestations which sharply reflect the steep decline of
North American influence in the region. The main purpose of Bush’s visit was to inaugurate Phase II,
so to speak, in American imperialism’s stunned reaction to the steady growth of the forces of progress
in Latin America. The offers made by Bush, however, were laughingly paltry, for instance, his pathetic
new “aid package,” featuring visits to the region by a US Army hospital ship and English classes for young
people in the United States. In the three countries governed by right-wing forces, one would expect
Bush’s song to be listened to appreciatively by those in power. In Mexico, however, the conservative
Felipe Calderon stated in press interviews that he would not play the role of a cartoon jester for the
US, and meeting with Bush he strongly criticized the building of a border fence between the two
countries. In Guatemala, Bush met with a president in a position similar to his own – at the end of his
mandate (there is a presidential election in Guatemala this year, and the Left has a good chance of
success).Following the visit of the “unwanted gringo” to a Mayan temple, the local indigenous people
proclaimed they must perform a ritual purification of the sanctuary. Even in Colombia, despite the
unctuous servility displayed by President Alvaro Uribe, a foul aroma still hung in the air because of the
burgeoning scandal over the presence of officials with direct links to paramilitary terrorists among the
Colombian president’s closest advisors – at the very core of the Uribe government.
The United State’s neoliberal agenda in Latin America make good relations impossible
even if we lift the embargo
Carmona, Member of the International Relations committee in Brazil, 2007
(Ronaldo, 4/6/2011, “Patriotic and Anti-Imperialist Trends in Latin America,” Online:
http://politicalaffairs.net/patriotic-and-anti-imperialist-trends-in-latin-america/ FG)
Brazil and Uruguay are cases apart, since both now have center-left governments. In these two
countries, given the lack of any political identification with them, the US put forward an “economic
agenda” as a pretext or kind of “bait.” Thus, given the shared interest of Brazil and Uruguay (and, one
might say, of all the countries in the region now governed by progressive forces) in promoting projects
of national development and economic growth which are in their own interests and under their own
control, Bush resorted to “peddling his own fish.” In Brazil, Bush tried to exploit the justified national
enthusiasm generated by the enormous potential of the rapidly emerging global biofuel market, in
which Brazil, in only a few years, could become a key player. However, Bush adamantly refused in his
meeting with Lula to even discuss the powerful combination of lavish agricultural subsidies and trade
protectionism, which creates enormous obstacles to any partnership with the United States in this
area. President Lula and his government were correct in receiving Bush in the way in which they did. In
the area of biofuel and ethanol, initial steps toward an agreement (in accordance with Brazil’s national
interests) were to be expected. But in order to reach this goal, less agricultural protectionism on the
part of the US was demanded. Lula also insisted that the Doha Development Round work to achieve
an economic balance that will really address the needs of developing countries, and cease to merely
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
17
serve as an instrument for the prolongation of the present neoliberal world order. On the political
level, Lula noted that Brazil 'respects the political and economic choices of each country', refusing to
allow President Bush the opportunity to criticize Venezuela or any other country in the region. In
Uruguay, the majority of its bourgeoisie defend the thesis that the country can only achieve
development by signing separate trade agreements with the “central” economic powers, apart from the
entire membership of Mercosur [the regional trade agreement between Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay,
Venezuela, and Paraguay, founded in 1991]. This is an enormous mistake. Looking at the ongoing Doha
Round of negotiations, one can easily see that the more powerful, wealthier nations are seeking to
impose a second phase of their neoliberal agenda and to preserve the current world order, one
marked by a severe North-South asymmetry.
Bad relations inevitable- lifting the embargo doesn’t solve for the spread of socialism
which the US will inevitably try to prevent
Birns and Lettieri, journalists at Political Affairs, 2006
(Larry and Michael, 5/8/2006, “The Aftermath of Bolivia’s Gas Golpe,” Online:
http://politicalaffairs.net/the-aftermath-of-bolivia-s-gas-golpe/ FG)
While much of the international fireworks are now fading, there is an ominous undercurrent which still
threatens. Some in Washington, who comprise the ideological heart of the anti-Chávez crusade, have
taken the nationalization as a sign that the Bush administration, distracted by Iraq, has thus failed to
effectively contain Caracas’ spreading influence and that Washington is in real danger of losing Latin
America. The nationalization’s high media profile could force the State Department to take a tough
approach to the region, even to the point of mobilizing the CIA and the U.S. military, but it is more
likely to work its way by undermining the all-important chink in the armor – the Latin American armed
forces.
Lifting the embargo doesn’t solve Latin American relations- there is a long history of
problems that doing one good thing can’t solve for
Washington rumbles with suppressed outrage over Latin America’s latest demonstrations of its
sovereignty - Bolivia’s nationalization of its oil and natural gas reserves. At the same time, newly
inaugurated president Evo Morales is a prime candidate to join Washington’s pantheon of Latin
American bad boys, presently dominated by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez. Meanwhile, the region’s
new populist leadership, also known as the “Pink Tide,” extends its colors across South America ready
to leap to much of the rest of Latin America. The “pink tide,” consists of left-leaning South American
governments seeking a third way to register their political legitimation to their citizens as well as to
register their autonomy regarding such foreign policy issues as Iraq. Meanwhile, Washington’s lame
regional policy has spurred disbelief even among the hemisphere’s most ardent pro-U.S.
governments. Some specialists maintain that while the region’s oncoming economic enfranchisement
can be understood from a number of perspectives, perhaps the most forthcoming analysis places the
roots of the new movement in the bedding soil of an egregiously failed Washington regional policy.
Throughout the Cold War’s gestation, Democratic as well as Republican presidents have not hesitated
to call for U.S. intervention in Latin America however persistently malignant these events have turned
out to be, ranging from coup-making in Guatemala and Chile, to the fostering of civil wars in Central
America, most of these intrusions later proved to be irrelevant, or at least insufficient to protect
genuine, even narrowly defined, U.S national interests. Most of all, they proved to be counterproductive or destructive. As a result, much of the region has become estranged from Washington’s
leadership, a legacy now apparent in the difficulties currently being encountered by U.S.
policymakers. No wonder that in polls undertaken throughout Latin America regarding the Iraq war,
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
18
and in the strategy of the Bush administration, an average of 85% of respondents have said no to U.S.
initiatives.
19
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
AT: Warming
Fixing Latin American carbon footprint would cost billions every year – price estimate for proposed
policies
IDB, 2012
(Inter-American Development Bank, “Latin America and the Caribbean face massive economic damages from global warming, report warns,”
4/5/2012, http://www.iadb.org/en/news/webstories/2012-06-05/latin-america-and-the-caribbean-global-warming,10011.html, AFGA).
However, the study also notes that forceful reductions in global emissions of greenhouse gases are needed
to avert some of the potentially catastrophic longer term consequences of climate change. The report
estimates that countries would need to invest an additional $110 billion per year over the next four
decades to decrease per capita carbon emissions to levels consistent with global climate stabilization
goals. ¶ “Many climate-related changes are irreversible and will continue to impact the region over the long term,”
said Walter Vergara, the IDB’s Division Chief of Climate Change and Sustainability and the lead researcher of the
study, whose preliminary findings were presented today in Washington at an event jointly hosted by the IDB and
the Center for American Progress (CAP). “To prevent further damages, adaptation is necessary but not enough.
Bolder actions are needed to bend the emissions curve in the coming decades.” ¶ Region especially vulnerable ¶
Latin America and the Caribbean contribute only 11 percent of the emissions that cause global warming.
However, countries are especially vulnerable to its effects, given the region’s dependence on natural resources, an
infrastructure network that is susceptible to climate events, and the presence of bio-climate hotspots such as the
Amazon basin, the Caribbean coral biome, coastal wetlands and fragile mountain eco-systems. Estimated yearly
damages in Latin America and the Caribbean caused by the physical impacts associated with the a rise of 2C
degrees over pre-industrial levels are of the order of $100 billion by 2050, or about 2 percent of GDP at current
values, according to the report titled “The Climate and Development Challenge for Latin America and the
Caribbean: Options for Climate Resilient Low Carbon Development.” ¶ The study cites climate impacts in areas such
as agriculture, exposure to tropical diseases and changing rainfall patterns, among others. For instance, the report
cites recent work estimating the loss of net agricultural exports in the region valued at between $30 billion and $52
billion in 2050. ¶ Mexico and Brazil have the largest land distribution just above sea level, making those countries
vulnerable to rising sea levels. A rise of one meter in the sea level could affect 6.700 kilometers of roads and cause
extensive flooding and coastal damage. A 50 percent loss of the coral cover in the Caribbean from coral bleaching
would cost at least $7 billion to the economies in the region. ¶ The study notes that the adaptation costs are a small
fraction of the costs of physical impacts, conservatively estimated at 0.2 percent of GDP for the region, at
current values. In addition, adaptation efforts would have significant development benefits, from enhanced water
and food security to improved air quality and less vehicle congestion, further reducing their net costs. ¶
“Investments in adaptation are cost effective and have substantial co-benefits” said Luis Miguel Galindo, Chief of
the Climate Change Unit of ECLAC, a key contributor to the study. “Also, some of these adaptation measures are
very easy to implement and have significant positive impacts.Ӧ Though adaptation is important, substantial
investments are also required in order to drastically cut the region’s projected carbon emissions to levels
consistent with global climate stabilization goals. ¶ Under a business-as-usual scenario, Latin America and the
Caribbean would contribute 9.3 tons per capita of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, up from the current 4.7 tons
per capita. The report identifies pathways to bend the emission curve to two tons per capita, by promoting zero
net emissions from deforestation and other land-use practices by 2030, combined with efforts to eliminate the
carbon footprint in the power matrix and transport infrastructure by 2050, at an annual cost of $110 billion. ¶ “Yes,
spending $110 billion a year for a region that faces major development challenges is not an easy
proposition,” said Pablo Gutman, the Director of Environmental Economics at the WWF. “However, this would
also bring about major benefits such as improved food and energy security; people would have healthier lives in
cleaner environments.”
Countries and organizations are already filling the financial needs of Latin America – Current funding
and projects as well as plans prove
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
20
The World Bank, 2011
(The World Bank, “The Durban Conference and Climate Change in Latin America,” 12/14/2011,
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/0,,contentMDK:23075521~pagePK:146736~piPK:146830~theSitePK:258554
,00.html, AFGA).
Although several countries of the region expressed concern about the amount of funds available to
adapt to the effects of climate change, the region can take advantage of international mechanisms to
finance low-carbon technologies and develop new comparative advantages.¶ The Durban Conference
made some progress with the technical details of the Green Climate Fund, which was initially agreed
upon at the Cancun Conference last year. The goal is to raise US$100 billion for this fund by 2020. Latin
American countries could use this fund to help adapt to climate change impacts and reduce their
emissions.¶ In addition, at the Durban Conference, the SIDS-DOCK initiative, also launched in Cancun in
2010 and which supports clean energy efforts of the world’s small island developing states, received
US$15 million from Japan to add to the initial US$14.5 million pledged by Denmark. Some of the projects
supported by this initiative are already underway. These focus on funding alternative energy feasibility
studies in Caribbean nations and the interconnection of the region’s electricity markets.¶ "This initiative
will not only help increase energy independence and build resilience for these nations, but it will also
allow them to lead – to demonstrate innovative mitigation strategies in the face of resource
constraints,” said Andrew Steer, World Bank special envoy for climate change.¶ To assist developing
countries in accessing financing for low-carbon investments and to enable them to take advantage of
carbon markets after 2012, the World Bank launched two new financial initiatives: the Carbon Initiative
for Development (Ci-Dev) and the third phase of the BioCarbon Fund.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
21
AT: Drug Cooperation
The Drug War in Latin America has failed – increasing dissatisfaction among affected countries and
admissions by US politicians
Rogers, reporter for Time, 2013
(Tim, Time World, “Drug War Do-Over: Can the U.S. Push Trafficking Out of Central America?,” 4/4/2013,
http://world.time.com/2013/04/04/drug-war-do-over-can-the-u-s-push-trafficking-out-of-central-america/, AFGA).
While Russian involvement in Central America is still cause for concern in some Washington circles, the U.S. has
much bigger problems in the region. In Guatemala and Honduras, two of the most violent countries on earth, the
U.S.-led drug war has become an increasingly difficult endeavor. Success, according to Brownfield, may mean
pushing the drug trade elsewhere and beginning the battle anew.¶ In Honduras, which gets $36 million of the
$85 million in annual U.S. aid for anti-drug efforts in Central America, rampant corruption has led the U.S. to
bypass the normal chain of police command to work with specialized units of agents “selected for their
honesty and lack of corruption,” according to Brownfield. The U.S. refuses to work with Honduran Police Chief
Juan Carlos Bonilla, whom U.S. officials are investigating for extrajudicial killings and other accusations ofrights
abuses, and 20 top police commissioners under his command.¶ Brownfield, who recently visited Honduras, says the
U.S. will maintain a policy of “two degrees of separation” from the country’s tarnished police commanders until
the whole force is “purified” of corruption — a process he thinks will take five to 10 years.¶ The U.S.’ rocky
relationship with the Honduran police force is not the only obstacle. Last July, the U.S. ended its controversial
joint-drug operations on Honduras’ lawless Mosquito Coast amid international outrage at the alleged
involvement of American DEA agents in the shooting deaths of four civilians in the remote Caribbean town of
Ahuas.¶ U.S. anti-drug efforts also face challenges in Guatemala, where President Otto Perez, a former
general, has become an outspoken opponent of the drug war. Perez is demanding a new approach, including
legalization, a policy that won some support from the leaders of Costa Rica and El Salvador, where President
Mauricio Funes initially backed the idea before quickly flip-flopping.¶ All of these problems loom large as President
Obama prepares to attend a May summit of Central American leaders in Costa Rica. Analysts say that trip will need
to be much more substantive than just a friendly grip-and-grin.¶ “When President Obama visits the region, he will
need another message beyond ‘we care’ and ‘we are willing to listen’ to alternative ideas on drug policy,” says
Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think tank on Latin America.
“Washington needs to do more serious thinking on this issue, and recognize that the costs of a failed policy have
been enormous and are being felt by our closest neighbors.” ¶ Even top U.S. officials are starting to
acknowledge that the drug war has not entirely been a success. “I would say at this moment in our efforts in
Central America, we are in the second or third inning; the game has started and the pitcher is throwing well, even
though unfortunately he gave up five runs in the first inning and at the moment the other team is winning 5 to 3,
or something like that,” Brownfield said during a March 28 press conference. ¶ Still, he’s optimistic that U.S.-led
disruptions of the drug trade will eventually prevail. “We don’t have to establish a paradise in Central America to
have success in the efforts against drug trafficking,” Brownfield said. “All we have to do is increase the operating
costs for drug traffickers by perhaps 10% or 15% in the coming years. And when we achieve that, the drug
traffickers will apply the law of the market that applies across the entire planet and they will look for new routes to
traffic their products. And that is totally viable and possible in the coming two or three years.” ¶ (MORE: Peace
Through Security: What Does Central America’s Crime Crisis Call For?)¶ Brownfield says every drug shipment
thatgets disrupted translates into rising business costs for cartel kingpins. Eventually, he says, the cost of trafficking
narcotics through Central America will become too great, and the smugglers will seek cheaper alternative shipping
routes.¶ Critics say that doesn’t sound like a winning strategy, but acknowledge Brownfield’s candor. ¶ “It’s almost
refreshing to hear him admit that U.S. drug control efforts have failed until now and that the only way they
will ‘succeed’ is by shoving the problem elsewhere, presumably to the Caribbean,” says Ethan Nadelmann,
executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a New York-based organization that advocates for alternatives to the
drug war. “Brownfield’s comment should also serve as a wake-up call for the island nations of the Caribbean; the
more the drug war ‘succeeds’ in Central America, the more it will ‘fail’ in their neighborhood.”¶ With
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
22
Russia jumping into the fray in Nicaragua, Guatemala pondering a truce and Honduras acting more like a liability
than an ally, perhaps the best outcome the U.S. could hope for with its current policy is a drug war do-
over somewhere else.
The war on drugs has either back lashed or helped very little to stop the drug trade
CBS News, 2013
(CBS News, “U.S. militarizes Latin American drug war,” 2/3/2013, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57567340/u.s-militarizes-latinamerican-drug-war/, AFGA).
Many in the military and other law enforcement agencies - the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, FBI - applaud the U.S. strategy, but critics say militarizing the
drug war in a region fraught with tender democracies and long-corrupt institutions can stir political
instability while barely touching what the U.N. estimates is a $320 billion global illicit drug market.¶
Congressman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), who chaired the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Western
Hemisphere for the past four years, says the U.S.-supported crackdown on Mexican cartels only left
them "stronger and more violent." He intends to reintroduce a proposal for a Western Hemisphere Drug
Policy Commission to evaluate antinarcotics efforts.¶ "Billions upon billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have
been spent over the years to combat the drug trade in Latin America and the Caribbean," he said. "In
spite of our efforts, the positive results are few and far between."
The war on drugs has few proven successes – critical reports have not been refuted
Bennet, journalist for LA Times, 2011
(Brian, Los Angelos Times, “U.S. can't justify its drug war spending, reports say,” 6/9/2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/09/world/la-fgnarco-contract-20110609, AFGA).
Reporting from Washington — As drug cartels wreak murderous havoc from Mexico to Panama, the
Obama administration is unable to show that the billions of dollars spent in the war on drugs have
significantly stemmed the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States, according to two government
reports and outside experts.¶ The reports specifically criticize the government's growing use of U.S.
contractors, which were paid more than $3 billion to train local prosecutors and police, help eradicate
fields of coca, operate surveillance equipment and otherwise battle the widening drug trade in Latin
America over the last five years.¶ "We are wasting tax dollars and throwing money at a problem without
even knowing what we are getting in return," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who chairs the Senate
subcommittee that wrote one of the reports, which was released Wednesday.¶ "I think we have wasted
our money hugely," agreed Bruce Bagley, who studies U.S. counter-narcotics efforts and chairs
international studies at the University of Miami at Coral Gables, Fla. "The effort has had corrosive effects
on every country it has touched."¶ Obama administration officials strongly deny that U.S. efforts have
failed to reduce drug production or smuggling in Latin America.
Latin America Relations Will Fail and won’t solve global drug trade
Sanchez, Managing director at Blue Star Strategies in Washington DC and rapporteur
and expert adviser to the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center's Transatlantic Task
Force on Latin America, 13
(Gabriel, 5/23/13, Atlantic Council, “The Trilateral Bond: Mapping a New Era for latin
America, the United States and Europe”,
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
23
http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/mapping-new-era-latin-america-united-statesand-europe, 6/29/13, AL)
There are also challenges to a renewed transatlantic partnership, as we detail in the report. An important swathe of Latin
America
seems to have no desire for a better relationship, led by Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua -- instead, their
northern neighbors are more useful as targets for domestic political populism. And the ongoing crisis of the
Eurozone makes it more difficult for the EU to focus on its common foreign policy.¶ It has also continued its deep economic ties with the U.S.
and Europe: "The
European Union is the largest single foreign investor in Latin America, accounting for 39 percent
of total FDI in the region in 2011. The EU is also the leading recipient of Brazilian exports and its first trading partner, importing primarily
agricultural goods and accounting for 21.7 percent of Brazil's total trade. The United States is the largest single national investor in the region
and supplied 18 percent of total FDI there in 2011," according to our report. But at the same time, Latin
America is diversifying and
coming into its own as a player in international trade. The rise of multilatinas (Latin American multinationals)
that are investing in places like Africa and China mean that the region's outward foreign direct investment has more than
quadrupled since 2000.¶ Addressing transnational crime and boosting public security. "The drug trade has for too long been
identified with Latin America alone. In reality, it is a transatlantic -- even global-phenomenon that
affects both day-to-day citizen security and the consolidation of democratic institutions. The United States and
the European Union should expand efforts to prevent, treat, and reduce the harm associated with drug use and take steps to limit the crossborder flow of deadly assault weapons. These weapons spawn violence on America's streets and find their way wholesale to Latin America.
Lifting the Cuban Embargo Doesn’t Stop Drug Marketing and Crime
Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, 13
(James, 3/12/13, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, “Worldwide Threat
Assessment of the US intelligence Community”,
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/130312/clapper.pdf, 6/29/13, AL)
Positive trends in much of Latin America include the deepening of democratic principles, economic growth, and resilience in the face of the
global financial crisis. Income inequality in the region is also showing a steady decline. In some areas, however, economic
stagnation,
high rates of violent crime and impunity, ruling party efforts to manipulate democratic institutions to
consolidate power, and slow recovery from natural disasters are challenging these strides . Initiatives to
strengthen regional integration are leading some countries to try to limit US influence, but they are hampered by ideological differences and
regional rivalries. The drug threat to the United States emanates primarily from the Western Hemisphere; the overwhelming majority of drugs
now consumed in the United States are produced in Mexico, Colombia, Canada, and the United States. Patterns
in drug marketing
and trafficking create conditions that could fuel this trend and further undermine citizen security in
several countries in the region. Central American governments, especially Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, are
trying to cope with some of the highest violent crime and homicide rates in the world. In addition, weak
and corrupt institutions in these countries foster permissive environments for gang and criminal activity,
limit democratic freedom, encourage systemic corruption, and slow recovery.
24
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
AT: Economy
Latin America is economically independent of the US – foreign investment and stable growth
Ben-Ami, former Israeli foreign minister, 2013
(Shlomo, Project Syndicate, “Is the US Losing Latin America?,” 6/5/2013, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-new-nature-of-usinfluence-in-latin-america-by-shlomo-ben-ami, AFGA).
MADRID – It is a mantra increasingly heard around the world: US power is in decline. And nowhere does this
seem truer than in Latin America. No longer is the region regarded as America’s “backyard”; on the contrary,
the continent has arguably never been so united and independent. But this view fails to capture the true
nature of US influence in Latin America – and elsewhere as well.¶ It is true that US attention to Latin America
has waned in recent years. President George W. Bush was more focused on his “global war on terror.” His
successor, Barack Obama, seemed to give the region little thought as well, at least in his first term. ¶ Indeed, at the
Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April 2012, Latin American leaders felt sufficiently confident and
united to challenge US priorities in the region. They urged the US to lift its embargo on Cuba, claiming that it
had damaged relations with the rest of the continent, and to do more to combat drug use on its own turf, through
education and social work, rather than supplying arms to fight the drug lords in Latin America – a battle that all
acknowledged has been an utter failure. ¶ It is also true that Latin American countries have pursued a
massive expansion of economic ties beyond America’s sway. China is now Latin America’s second-largest
trading partner and rapidly closing the gap with the US. India is showing keen interest in the region’s energy
industry, and has signed export agreements in the defense sector. Iran has strengthened its economic and military
ties, especially in Venezuela.¶ Similarly, in 2008, Russia’s then-President Dmitri Medvedev identified the US war on
terror as an opportunity to create strategic partnerships with rising powers such as Brazil, and with the Bolivarian
Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), a Venezuelan-inspired bloc opposed to US designs in the region. The energy giant
Gazprom and the country’s military industries have spearheaded the Kremlin’s effort to demonstrate Russia’s
ability to influence America’s neighborhood – a direct response to perceived American meddling in Russia’s own
“near abroad,” particularly Georgia and Ukraine.¶ Yet it would be a mistake to regard Latin America’s broadening
international relations as marking the end of US preeminence. Unlike in the bygone era of superpowers and
captive nations, American influence can no longer be defined by the ability to install and depose leaders from the
US embassy. To believe otherwise is to ignore how international politics has changed over the last quartercentury.¶ A continent once afflicted by military takeovers has slowly but surely implanted stable democracies.
Responsible economic management, poverty-reduction programs, structural reforms, and greater
openness to foreign investment have all helped to generate years of low-inflation growth. As a result, the
region was able to withstand the ravages of the global financial crisis.
25
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
AT: Terrorism
Latin American Relations Don’t Solve Security From Terror
Sorj, Professor of Sociology at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, 5
(Bernardo, 2005, SUR Journal, “Security, human Security, and Latin
America”,http://www.surjournal.org/eng/conteudos/artigos3/ing/artigo_sorj.htm,
6/28/13, AL)
The decade of the 1990s, which we could call a period of “blue globalization”, was a period of democratic consolidation on the continent. The
agenda of the international system in general, and of United
States/Latin America relations in particular, were dominated
by economic themes and by the expectation that globalization, as well as new forms of economic regulation, would
generate a system of international political governance founded in multilateralism. With the new millennium, analysts saw that
the tides were quickly turning. Economic globalization did not produce expressive gains for a good part of the population of Latin American
countries in this new era of “gray globalization”. The region presents its own weaknesses in the international arena. In past decades, Latin
American countries were not able to develop a shared vision of their security problems, nor a concrete agenda
for action. Even more than Europe or Japan, Latin American countries are free riders in the international scene. While they enjoy the
strategic umbrella of the United States, Latin American countries often feel they are victimized by the
hegemonic power of their overbearing neighbor from the north. After the anti-communist struggle, different countries
presented perspectives and priorities that varied considerably in terms of reorganizing the inter-American institutional system and defining
security priorities in the region. The United States is the only country on the continent that presents a proposal for hemispheric security, while
Latin American countries tend to favor local perspectives/interests and a defensive posture. The way reality is perceived and conceptualized
plays a fundamental role in the social realm. The Bush
doctrine of war against terror may have a major impact on
Latin American security systems and has the capacity to galvanize and polarize Latin American politics around a love/hate axis.
Possibly one of the worst consequences of the current US anti-terror doctrine is that many Latin
American politicians and intellectuals are able to gain recognition and popularity only by criticizing the United
States government position. This allows them to avoid analyzing and confronting the continent’s genuine security
problems, including the development of an effective security doctrine capable of facing up to the US
anti-terror agenda.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**AT: Leadership**
26
27
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
No Challengers
No hegemony now—India, China, and the US balance each other out in Latin America
Lafargue, Doctor of Geopolitics from the University of René Descartes, 6
(François, November-December 2006, China Perspectives, “China’s Presence in Latin
America,” accessed 6/25/13, IC)
38Yet, it would
be wrong to conclude that Latin America was coming under Beijing’s influence or that
such influence was all-powerful. Electoral changes in Latin America owe more to the development of
Latin American societies (a financial crisis in Argentina, the rejection of the multinationals, the emancipation of Indian majorities, the
final stages in the process of democratisation) than to any particular Chinese influence or strategy. Instability and
political changes are also weakening Chinese enterprises, as in Bolivia and still more recently in Ecuador.¶ 37
Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos.¶ 38 For 2004, foreign direct investment in Bolivia amounted to US$134 million.¶ 39In September
2004, two Chinese enterprises, Lutianhua and Chengda Chemical announced their joint venture with the Bolivian firm LisaTum to build a
petrochemical plant designed to produce ammonia. Three months later, in December, a subsidiary of SINOPEC, Shengli Oilfield, signed several
contracts with YPFB37, the Bolivian state oil company; their projects included two refineries, a power station near Villamontes, ten oilfields in
the Chaco and the Chapare region. The agreement had been made possible when China accepted a minority stake with 49% of the shared
enterprise: this would have been a colossal investment38, amounting to US$1.5 billion, the equivalent of 18% of Bolivia’s GNP in 2004.
However, the legal minefield surrounding investments in Bolivia’s hydrocarbon sector eventually prompted Shengli to pull out of the project.¶
40China has also become embroiled in legal difficulties in Ecuador. In May 2006, the state oil company revoked the operating contracts
awarded the US oil company, Occidental Petroleum. Oxy, as it is known, was accused of having illegally transferred, six years before, a 40%
interest in its fields to the Canadian group EnCana. EnCana, however, had then passed these holdings on to the Chinese consortium, the Andes
Petroleum Company, which now finds itself having to contest ownership.¶ Conclusion¶ 39 Cf François Lafargue, “La Chine, une Puissance
africaine”,Perspectives Chinoises, 2005, pp 2-10; a (...)¶ 41In Latin America, China finds itself adapting to an environment less familiar than that
which it previously found in Africa39. Ever since the 1950s, China has been forging its links with black Africa and has helped some of its peoples
in their struggles for freedom. With Latin America, shared memories are fewer and friendships are quite recent. The Chinese political system
arouses distrust in a region that has its own tragic experience of dictatorships, a region where democratic institutions are still fragile. The
relationship between Beijing and Latin America is not one of subjection. Brazil, the world’s tenth-ranking
economic power (its GDP is twice that of sub-Saharan Africa) sees itself more as China’s partner than as its henchman.¶
42Looking beyond the fine words in praise of friendship and cooperation, one can detect a hint of
mistrust. In 2004, Beijing joined the Organisation of American States (OAS) with the status of permanent observer; but its
application for membership of the Inter-American Development Bank has so far been rejected several
times over. There is a fear that, within that body, Beijing might weigh still more heavily on the economies and the governments of the
region.¶ 43China does not hesitate to sacrifice its friendships when its fundamental interests are at stake. Beijing refused to support Brazil’s
claim to a UN Security Council seat, though Brazil is one of the original Group of Four (with Germany, India and Japan) proposed for permanent
membership. The plan is for enlarging the Council from 15 to 25 members, six of the seats permanent, of which two would be for the African
continent and four for non-permanent members. No decisions have been reached. Within
the World Trade Organisation (WTO), China
is very far from being supportive to the Latin American countries in their battles against the agricultural
subsidies paid by the EU and the United States to their producers. Beijing is not affected by this question and is reluctant to add
any extra source of grievance to its trading relations, already stormy, with the West. Yet, Beijing will not be able to maintain its
stance of cautious commitment, with the growing involvement of India in Latin America, for long. Delhi is seeking
new sources of raw materials and political support in its bid for a Security Council seat: it too is taking an interest in Latin America.¶ 40 Latin
America receives 2.7% of India’s exports (half going to Brazil and Mexico) and supplies 1.8% (...)¶ 41 Since 2000, trade
between India
and Latin America has increased by two and a half times.¶ 42
Since 1991, Mercosur or, in English, the Southern
Common Market, brings together Argentina, Brazil, (...)¶ 43 According to the UNCTAD report “India’s outward FDI, a Giant Awakening?”, 2004.¶
44For the present, Latin
America amounts to only 2.2% of India’s foreign trade40. Yet, these figures should
not be allowed to mask the real dynamic for growth or the acceleration in trade exchanges over the past few years41. These
bilateral exchanges have increased since January 2004 when India and the members of Mercosur42 signed a preferential
trade agreement on 450 products, intended over the long term to create a Free Trade Area. Indian investments in the region are still limited, as
noted in an UNCTAD report.43 In 2004, India’s overall FDI amounted to US$6.6 billion, of which only 2% was in Latin America. But, over the past
three years, the presence of Indian enterprises in Latin America has been built up. Quite soon, Latin
America will become a
fiercely contested market. And the three leading powers of the mid twenty-first century will confront one another there.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
28
Their alarmist evidence is false—China’s equipment is logistical in nature and
standard; US officials aren’t even worried
Marcella, adjunct professor at the U.S. Army War College, 12
(Gabriel, 2/4/12, Americas Quarterly, “China’s Military Activity in Latin America,”
http://www.americasquarterly.org/Marcella, accessed 6/25/13, IC)
One headline in the Asia Times Online proclaimed: “China on the March in Latin America.”1Another, in Military
Review, warned of China’s threat to the United States: “In Uncle Sam’s Backyard: China’s Military Influence in Latin America.”2 Such
language underlines fears about China becoming a military rival to the U.S. —or worse, undermining U.S. security
in a region defined in the past by the Monroe Doctrine.¶ The truth, though, doesn’t look anything like the headlines.
Although military diplomacy and arms sales and transfers to some countries of the region have
increased in the past decade, the quantity and type of equipment involved hardly represents the strategic
threat suggested by the headline writers. Moreover, much of the equipment is logistical in nature; little of it
is for combat or power projection.¶ There is, to be sure, a heightened Chinese interest in building alliances and extending contacts
with governments and institutional players (such as militaries) in the region—going beyond just trade and investment. But the notion that
the Chinese are seeking to establish a strategic beachhead is far-fetched, irresponsible and
counterproductive to establishing a useful relationship with China as its global influence rises . Contrary to
the headlines, China does not want to challenge the U.S. in the hemisphere.¶ The alarmist reporting, much of it from
U.S. sources, also ignores the Latin American perspective. Latin Americans are not simple bystanders. They seek to
engage China in order to understand the nature and extent of China’s power and influence—and its effect on their
national interests and foreign policies. They also want to keep their options open for acquiring military equipment at an affordable price
and technology transfers for coproduction or independent production. They are also aware of the risks of acquiring a motley mix of systems
from various nations, a prospect that makes maintenance expensive and readiness problematic.¶ The Five Dimensions¶ Chinese military
activities fall into five categories: humanitarian, peacekeeping, military exchanges, arms sales and donations, and technology transfers.¶ 1)
Humanitarian Under the banner of “Harmonious Mission 2011,” the Chinese Navy’s hospital ship, the Peace Ark, entered the Caribbean in
October 2011. The mission was to provide medical services to local people and military and administrative personnel of countries visited.¶
Stops included Cuba, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Costa Rica. The craft has 300 hospital beds and eight operating rooms—and carries 416
personnel, 107 of them medical workers. This was the second overseas voyage of the Peace Ark, following “Harmonious Mission 2010” in the
Gulf of Aden and five countries in Asia and Africa, which treated 15,500 people.¶ The demonstration of soft power is similar to humanitarian
missions conducted by the U.S. Navy’s hospital ship, the USNS Comfort, since 2007. Those trips have taken the USNS Comfort to ports of call in
Central America, South America and the Caribbean to provide care to thousands. There is one important political distinction: unlike the Chinese
program, the USNS Comfort does not attend to armed forces personnel and administrative personnel of the countries it visits.¶ 2)
Peacekeeping¶ Although it once opposed international peacekeeping, China is now the largest provider of peacekeepers of the five permanent
members of the UN Security Council, with over 3,100 in Africa and Lebanon.¶ In 2004, China sent 130 riot police to Haiti as part of the UN’s
MINUSTAH peacekeeping forces, becoming the first Chinese uniformed formation to serve in the Western Hemisphere. Eight Chinese
peacekeepers were killed during the devastating January 2010 earthquake. All but 16 of the 130 were withdrawn in 2010. Taiwan, which has
ambassadorial level relations with Haiti, sent a rescue team of 23 people and two dogs.¶ 3) Military Exchanges¶ Senior defense officials from
Latin America visit China routinely and Chinese officials reciprocate with high-level visits to Latin America. Students from Colombia, Chile,
Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay have gone to China’s Defense Studies Institute, the Army Command College, the Navy Command School, and the
Naval Research Institute.¶ Though this might seem impressive, the numbers do not come close to the thousands of Latin American students,
military and civilian, who go to the U.S., Europe and other countries for advanced studies. Moreover, most of the student programs are oneway: to China. It will be a measure of increased trust and confidence when Chinese officers are sent to study in Latin American military schools.
The U.S. has sent officers to study at various Latin American military schools for more than 50 years. Some of them have reached the highest
ranks in the U.S. military.¶ 4) Arms sales¶ The truth is that Latin America is not a large market for arms sales. Its military establishments are
small by world standards and their defense budgets austere. The defense problems that many countries face are internal conflicts and public
security, not conventional threats from over the horizon.¶ Latin American defense spending is forecast to grow from $63 billion in 2011 to $65
billion by 2014, with a mere 20 percent being available for procurement and the bulk going to personnel costs.3 While equipment
modernization is imperative, only a few countries (Chile, Brazil, Venezuela) can afford it. And those countries have gone on the arms market to
buy. According to Jane’s Defense Weekly Reports, the amount of arms recently sold or donated by China to Latin American countries is small
[see table on p.69].¶ In the past decade, China sold $58 million worth of Karakorum jets to Bolivia, upward of $150 million in air surveillance
systems to Venezuela, and donated military materiel to Bolivia, Guyana, Colombia, and Peru, such as uniforms, trucks, jeeps, field kitchens,
engineering supplies, tents, gloves, and hats. Peru received a mobile field hospital and other equipment in 2010 worth $300 million.¶ 5)
Technology transfer¶ The military technology transfer with Argentina is instructive. Argentina has produced sophisticated aircraft, including
jets, since the 1940s and 1950s. The Fábrica Argentina de Aviones (located in Córdoba) was founded in 1927 and has manufactured over 1,300
aircraft of various types—including the excellent Pucara and Pampa—and today employs about 1,000 local workers, down from 9,000. Today,
the Argentine government wants to resuscitate that capacity, and there may be a niche market for light multiple-use transport helicopters in
South America, in addition to sales within Argentina.¶ In October 2011, Argentina announced an agreement with the China National AeroTechnology Import & Export Corporation to produce the CZ-W11 ultra-light helicopter. Apparently, a minimum production run of 40 will be
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
29
necessary to make it economically feasible. The CZ-W11 is a reverse engineered version (with minor changes) of the Eurocopter AS 35OB Ecureil
helicopter. A similar version of the latter, the Ecureil 2, is being co-produced by Eurocopter subsidiary Helibras in Brazil.¶ Brazil is pushing hard
on the technology transfer front to enhance both its civilian and military industry. Though there is no specific agreement with China on military
technology transfer, the two countries have developed and launched three Earth resources satellites to benefit nations that do not have their
own satellites to monitor natural resources, agricultural zones and urban development. Four more are planned.4¶ Brazil makes 50 percent of
the satellite components. However, another effort at commercial collaboration foundered. Brazil’s Embraer and Aviation Industry of China
agreed to jointly manufacture the midsize ERJ-145 passenger jet in Harbin. According to defense analyst R. Evan Ellis, Embraer viewed the
collaboration as necessary to gain access to the Chinese market, which China resisted. The “relationship,” he added, “was also soured by the
perception within Embraer that the Chinese had used the partnership to steal Embraer’s technology to support their own aircraft
development.”5¶ Venezuela paid a Chinese company, Great Wall Industries Corporation (GWIC), $406 million to develop and launch a satellite,
the Simón Bolívar” in 2008. Similarly, Bolivia contracted with the GWIC to build the Tupac Katari satellite and launch it in 2013, at a cost of $300
million, of which $295 million would be financed by the China Development Bank.6¶ Implications for U.S. Hemispheric Strategy¶ U.S.
officials are not publicly concerned about China’s military activities. Frank Mora, deputy assistant
secretary of defense for Western Hemisphere Affairs, stated in 2009 that while the U.S. stands for transparency,
China’s arms and technology transfers are standard in the international community, and that some of
the equipment can help Latin American governments improve security and counter drug trafficking.¶
Henry Kissinger, in his latest book, On China, calls for the new U.S. relationship with China to be built on strategic trust. The same advice applies
to thinking about the evolving ties between China and Latin America.
Public polls show American influence to be greater than Chinese—China’s influence
isn’t even expected to grow
Azpuru, associate professor of political science at Wichita State University, and
Zechmeister, associate professor of political science and Associate Director of the
Latin American Public Opinion Project at Vanderbilt University, 13
(Dinorah and Elizabeth, 6/24/13, “Latin Americans’ Perceptions of the United States
and China,” http://americasquarterly.org/latin-americans-perceptions-united-statesand-china, accessed 6/25/13, IC)
U.S. and Chinese leaders recently have each dedicated considerable time to visiting with their Latin American counterparts. In May, President
Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden separately visited five countries: Costa Rica, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, and Trinidad & Tobago. In
June, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Costa Rica, Mexico and Trinidad & Tobago as well.¶ Other countries that are non-traditional external
actors in Latin America are also stepping up their engagement. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has visited the region twice this year,
and Russia is looking to broaden political and economic ties with the region.1 Latin American leaders, for their part, also have visited in recent
months not only the United States but several countries that are outside of the traditional network of international contacts for the region.¶
But what
is the reaction of the public across the hemisphere? Are outside powers trusted by the
people? And, how much influence are they perceived to have today and in the future? Answers to these questions may have
significant implications for the success of efforts to broaden diplomatic and economic relations within
the Latin American and Caribbean region.¶ Data from LAPOP’s 2012 AmericasBarometer regional
survey of public opinion helps to answer these questions. The study, which is based on over 40,000 interviews across 26
countries, measures a variety of public perceptions, including trust in non-Latin American countries and
their perceived influence in global affairs. ¶ According to the survey, average trust in the United States is
significantly higher than trust in Iran and Russia, and marginally higher than trust in China. Figure 1 shows 24 Latin American
and Caribbean countries’ average level of trust in Iran, Russia, China and the United States on a 0–100 scale, with a higher score signifying
greater trust.2 For each country, respondents rated whether they considered the government in question “very trustworthy, somewhat
trustworthy, not very trustworthy, or not at all trustworthy” or had “no opinion.” Overall, many respondents selected no opinion, in particular
with regard to Iran and Russia.¶ Of course, average levels of trust vary across the region. Looking at the level of trust in China and the United
States, it is clear that public perceptions vary in the countries that belong to different regional subgroups: Central American Integration System
(SICA), Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Alliance of the Pacific, Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), and Mercosur. Figure 2 shows that
opinions of the United States are comparatively more favorable in the Central American and Caribbean groupings. Levels of trust in China are
comparatively high among the left-leaning ALBA grouping.3 The
U.S. profile in the region remains comparatively strong
in general, particularly among countries geographically close to the United States. But what is the Latin American public’s expectation of
future U.S. influence? Figure 3 presents, on the left, responses to a question asking which country currently has the
most influence in the region. Forty percent selected the United States. But the right of the figure shows that only
30 percent of respondents believe the U.S. will be the dominant power in the future. Interestingly, the difference in response rates
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
30
in regard to China’s current and future influence is only marginal (3.5 percentage points), which indicates
that important segments of the public perceive other Latin American countries (e.g., Brazil) and non-Latin American
countries (e.g., Japan) as likely contenders for key influence in the future. The survey also examined which
country should be a model for future development. Once again, more respondents selected the United
States (27.5 percent) than China (16.3 percent). Figure 4 highlights the response based on whether the interview was conducted in a
country that belongs to the ALBA (red) or the Alliance of the Pacific (blue) groupings. There is not a clear difference between the two regional
blocs in terms of their preference for the U.S. or Chinese models for development (or for any other option, not presented here). However,
Venezuelans in 2012 were more inclined to favor the Chinese model than they were inclined to favor the U.S. model of development.¶
Overall, these public opinion analyses show that the United States retains an advantage, for the region as a whole,
when it comes to levels of trust and other attitudes. At the same time, there is evidence that the public’s trust in China is close to rivaling levels
of trust in the U.S. and that the public perceives U.S. influence as on the decline. When it comes to models of development, there is a tendency
for the public to select the U.S. over China (except for the case of Venezuela) but, notably, even more individuals in the survey selected a
different response, indicating preferences in the region toward allying with other powers or following domestic models of development.¶
The belief that US influence in Latin America is falling is false—Latin America has
changed and influence is now based upon trade, culture, and shared interests; the US
completely beats Iran, Russia, and China.
Ben-Ami, Vice President of the Toledo International Center for Peace, 13
(Shlomo, 6/5/13, Project Syndicate, “Is the US Losing Latin America?”
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-new-nature-of-us-influence-inlatin-america-by-shlomo-ben-ami, accessed 6/26/13, IC_
MADRID – It is a mantra increasingly heard around the world: US
power is in decline. And nowhere does this seem truer
than in Latin America. No longer is the region regarded as America’s “backyard”; on the contrary, the continent has arguably never
been so united and independent. But this view fails to capture the true nature of US influence in Latin America –
and elsewhere as well. ¶ It is true that US attention to Latin America has waned in recent years. President George W. Bush was more focused on
his “global war on terror.” His successor, Barack Obama, seemed to give the region little thought as well, at least in his first term.¶ Indeed, at
the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April 2012, Latin American leaders felt sufficiently confident and united to challenge US priorities in
the region. They urged the US to lift its embargo on Cuba, claiming that it had damaged relations with the rest of the continent, and to do more
to combat drug use on its own turf, through education and social work, rather than supplying arms to fight the drug lords in Latin America – a
battle that all acknowledged has been an utter failure.¶ It is also true that Latin American countries have pursued a massive expansion of
economic ties beyond America’s sway. China is now Latin America’s second-largest trading partner and rapidly closing the gap with the US.
India is showing keen interest in the region’s energy industry, and has signed export agreements in the defense sector. Iran has strengthened its
economic and military ties, especially in Venezuela.¶ Similarly, in 2008, Russia’s then-President Dmitri Medvedev identified the US war on terror
as an opportunity to create strategic partnerships with rising powers such as Brazil, and with the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), a
Venezuelan-inspired bloc opposed to US designs in the region. The energy giant Gazprom and the country’s military industries have
spearheaded the Kremlin’s effort to demonstrate Russia’s ability to influence America’s neighborhood – a direct response to perceived
American meddling in Russia’s own “near abroad,” particularly Georgia and Ukraine.¶ Yet it
would be a mistake to regard Latin
America’s broadening international relations as marking the end of US preeminence. Unlike in the bygone era
of superpowers and captive nations, American influence can no longer be defined by the ability to install and
depose leaders from the US embassy. To believe otherwise is to ignore how international politics has changed over the last
quarter-century.¶ A continent once afflicted by military takeovers has slowly but surely implanted stable
democracies. Responsible economic management, poverty-reduction programs, structural reforms, and greater openness to foreign
investment have all helped to generate years of low-inflation growth. As a result, the region was able to withstand the
ravages of the global financial crisis.¶ The US not only encouraged these changes, but has benefited
hugely from them. More than 40% of US exports now go to Mexico and Central and South America,
the US’s fastest-growing export destination. Mexico is America’s second-largest foreign market (valued at
$215 billion in 2012). US exports to Central America have risen by 94% over the past six years; imports from
the region have risen by 87%. And the US continues to be the largest foreign investor on the continent.
American interests are evidently well served by having democratic, stable, and increasingly
prosperous neighbors.¶ This new reality also demands a different type of diplomacy – one that recognizes the diverse interests of the
continent. For example, an emerging power such as Brazil wants more respect on the world stage. Obama blundered when he dismissed a 2010
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
31
deal on Iran’s nuclear program mediated by Brazil and Turkey (despite having earlier endorsed the talks). Other countries might benefit from US
efforts to promote democracy and socioeconomic ties, as Obama’s recent trips to Mexico and Costa Rica show.¶ Trade relations provide
another all-important lever. President Sebastian Piñera of Chile visited the White House earlier this week to discuss, among other things, the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an ambitious trade agreement that might encompass New Zealand, Singapore, Australia, Mexico, Canada, and
Japan. President Ollanta Humala of Peru is expected in the White House next week, while Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled to visit Latin
America soon after.¶ Language
and culture matter, too. Given the extraordinary growth of Latinos’ influence
in the US, it is almost inconceivable that America could lose its unique status in the region to China or
Russia, let alone Iran.¶ Gone are the days when military muscle and the politics of subversion could
secure US influence – in Latin America or anywhere else. A world power today is one that can combine economic
vigor and a popular culture with global outreach on the basis of shared interests. The US is better
positioned than any other power in this respect, particularly when it comes to applying these advantages in its immediate
vicinity.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
32
China Rise Inevitable
China’s rise to hegemony is inevitable
Hutchinson, Reuters Columnist, 6/25
(Doug, Asia Times, 6/25/13 “China's rise to hegemony”,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GECON-01-250613.html, 6/27/13,
PD)
There is no question that China's enormous economic success in the last 40 years has brought forth a
desire, both among the regime and among China's people as a whole, to resume the position of global
dominance it enjoyed for two millennia. Ten years ago, this ambition would have seemed quixotic,
except over the time-frame of half a century or more. Today, both because of China's economic
successes and because of US economic, military and foreign policy blunders, it appears entirely
realistic, and for many observers inevitable. Whether China's advance is something to be welcomed
depends entirely on what kind of regime China has as a hegemon. Two possibilities exist. First, China
may continue its current growth on its current trajectory with its current regime, with its GDP per
capita increasing from about 15% of the US figure to about 50%. At that point, the inefficiencies and
corruption of China's current government system would prevent further progress towards the "frontier"
affluence of the United States and the better-run European and Asian free-market economies. However,
to a Chinese regime concerned about its power position rather than the welfare of its citizens, this
wouldn't matter. With a gross domestic product per capita half that of the United States, China would
have a GDP in absolute terms about twice that of the US, since its population is four times that of the
US. Indeed, China's GDP would be as great as that of the US and the EU combined, although smaller
free-market countries like Canada, Australia and the free-market East Asian economies of Japan, South
Korea and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations would still give the West a modest
preponderance (and no, Vladimir Vladimirovich, by allying with China you would not bring the position
back into balance; with only 130 million people by then and a GDP per capita constrained like China's by
corruption and inefficiency you would still not be a serious economic competitor, however impressive
your missile count). In this case, you can imagine the Chinese playing the game of international power
politics rather like the old Soviet Union, at least in its less malign days after Stalin's death.
33
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Alt Cause
The EU’s growing influence is zero sum with US Heg
Khanna, Director of the Global Governance Initiative @ the New America Foundation,
‘08
(Parag, New York Times, 1/27/08, “Waving Goodbye to Hegemony”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27worldt.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all, 6/27/13, PD)
And Europe’s influence grows at America’s expense. While America fumbles at nation-building,
Europe spends its money and political capital on locking peripheral countries into its orbit. Many poor
regions of the world have realized that they want the European dream, not the American dream.
Africa wants a real African Union like the E.U.; we offer no equivalent. Activists in the Middle East
want parliamentary democracy like Europe’s, not American-style presidential strongman rule. Many
of the foreign students we shunned after 9/11 are now in London and Berlin: twice as many Chinese
study in Europe as in the U.S. We didn’t educate them, so we have no claims on their brains or
loyalties as we have in decades past. More broadly, America controls legacy institutions few seem to
want — like the International Monetary Fund — while Europe excels at building new and
sophisticated ones modeled on itself. The U.S. has a hard time getting its way even when it dominates
summit meetings — consider the ill-fated Free Trade Area of the Americas — let alone when it’s not
even invited, as with the new East Asian Community, the region’s answer to America’s Apec.
Offshoring and the uneven concentration of wealth has caused American decline
Chomsky, Institute Professor emeritus @ MIT Department of Linguistics and
Philosophy, ‘12
(Noam, Al Jazeera, 2/15/12, “'Losing' the world: American decline in perspective”,
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/2012215773268827.html
,6/27/13, PD)
Despite such victories, American decline continued. By 1970, the US share of world wealth had
dropped to about 25 per cent, roughly where it remains, still colossal but far below the end of World
War II. By then, the industrial world was "tripolar": US-based North America, German-based Europe,
and East Asia, already the most dynamic industrial region, at the time Japan-based, but by now
including the former Japanese colonies Taiwan and South Korea, and more recently China. At about
that time, American decline entered a new phase: conscious self-inflicted decline. From the 1970s,
there has been a significant change in the US economy, as planners, private and state, shifted it
towards financialisation and the offshoring of production, driven in part by the declining rate of profit
in domestic manufacturing. These decisions initiated a vicious cycle in which wealth became highly
concentrated (dramatically so in the top 0.1 per cent of the population), yielding
concentration of political power, hence legislation to carry the cycle further: taxation and other fiscal
policies, deregulation, changes in the rules of corporate governance allowing huge gains for
executives, and so on. Meanwhile, for the majority, real wages largely stagnated, and people
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
34
were able to get by only by sharply increased workloads (far beyond Europe), unsustainable debt,
and repeated bubbles since the Reagan years, creating paper wealth that inevitably disappeared
when they burst (and the perpetrators were bailed out by the taxpayer). In parallel, the
political system has been increasingly shredded as both parties are driven deeper into corporate
pockets with the escalating cost of elections, the Republicans to the level of farce, the Democrats
(now largely the former "moderate Republicans") not far behind. A recent study by the
Economic Policy Institute, which has been the major source of reputable data on these
developments for years, is entitled Failure by Design. The phrase "by design" is accurate.
Other choices were certainly possible. And as the study points out, the "failure" is classbased. There is no failure for the designers. Far from it. Rather, the policies are a failure for the
large majority, the 99 per cent in the imagery of the Occupy movements - and for the
country, which has declined and will continue to do so under these policies. One factor is the
offshoring of manufacturing. As the solar panel example mentioned earlier illustrates,
manufacturing capacity provides the basis and stimulus for innovation leading to higher
stages of sophistication in production, design, and invention. That, too, is being
outsourced, not a problem for the "money mandarins" who increasingly design policy,
but a serious problem for working people and the middle classes, and a real disaster for
the most oppressed, African Americans, who have never escaped the legacy of slavery
and its ugly aftermath, and whose meagre wealth virtually disappeared after the
collapse of the housing bubble in 2008, setting off the most recent financial crisis, the
worst so far.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
35
**AT: Oil Spills**
Status Quo solves spills – Obama will remove embargo in case of spill and drilling
companies have increased tech.
Allen, NPR correspondent on the Southeast, 12
(Greg, NPR, 2/13/12, http://www.npr.org/2012/02/13/146635957/u-s-watchesclosely-as-oil-drilling-begins-off-cuba, 6/26/13, ND)
Complicating matters is the fact that this new well is being drilled in the waters of a country that's
under a strict U.S. embargo. Unless they apply for and receive special permission from the government,
U.S. companies are banned from doing any work on the well — even if there's a spill.¶ Jorge Pinon, a
former oil company executive and now a research fellow at the University of Texas, says if there's a
blowout, the U.S. president is sure to immediately lift the embargo for companies that respond. ¶
Pinon also says the Spanish company doing the drilling, Repsol, has a lot of experience with deepwater drilling in the Gulf. And, he says, the company has upgraded its procedures to incorporate
lessons learned in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill.¶
Repsol platform is safe
AFP 2012
[1-10-12, AFP, US satisfied with Cuban oil platform safety, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jRdZVwA6kWw7F0ZAkIfaNktRDbA?docId=CNG.9b69248aac87f5b8178771447c4c27a7.461, 6-30-12, GZ]
US safety inspectors say an oil platform managed by the Spanish company Repsol for the Cuban
government meets their safety standards.¶ The Cuban government plans to use the platform to drill for oil deep in Gulf of
Mexico waters, off the coasts of Trinidad and Tobago.¶ Safety inspectors who checked the platform Scarabeo 9 "found
the vessel to generally comply with existing international and US standards by which Repsol has
pledged to abide," the US Interior Department said in a statement dated Monday and sent to AFP.¶ The inspectors were
invited by Repsol to examine the platform but "their review does not confer any form of certification or endorsement under US or international
law," the statement says.¶ Neither Cuba or Repsol are required to follow US recommendations, the Interior Department said.¶
Representatives from the United States and Cuba participated in an emergency preparedness seminar
in the Bahamas recently along with officials from other countries that have interests in the Gulf of Mexico. They exchanged
information on how to handle a disaster in the Gulf.¶ The United States has a large oil industry presence in the Caribbean
and the Gulf of Mexico, which was the site of the devastating 2010 oil spill, the worst environmental disaster in US history.¶ US Coast
Guard personnel based in Florida are updating their contingency plans in case of another oil platform
accident, the Interior Department said.¶ The Repsol platform safety inspection fulfills an agreement US officials
reached with the Cuban government last year.¶ US Coast Guard Vice Admiral Brian Salerno told a House Natural Resources
Committee in November that the inspection was "consensual," but noted there was no mechanism to compel them to allow the visit.¶ Daniel
Whittle of the non-governmental Environmental Defense Fund told the panel that the Cubans plan to drill as many as six exploratory wells by
2013.¶ "We had frank and open discussions and Cuban officials acknowledged the challenges associated with building an offshore oil and gas
industry from scratch," he said.¶ "They repeated their pledge
to follow the highest international environmental and
safety standards and expressed a strong willingness to cooperate with the United States and other
countries in the region on all aspects of environmental protection and safety matters."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**AT: Economy**
36
37
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Fails
Lifting the sanctions fails—no economic stimulus or FDI
Perales, Senior Program Associate, 10
(Jose Raul, Woodrow Wilson Center Latin American Program, 8/2010, “The United
States and Cuba: Implications of an Economic Relationship,”
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/LAP_Cuba_Implications.pdf, p. 1-4,
accessed 6/24/13, IC)
there are important pitfalls associated ¶ with deeper economic relations. In a April 29, ¶ 2010, hearing
on H.R. 4645, the Travel Restriction ¶ Reform and Export Enhancement Act (designed ¶ to remove obstacles to legal sales of U.S. agricultural ¶
commodities to Cuba—by eliminating the cashin-advance provision required for all such sales ¶ to Cuba—and to end travel restrictions on all ¶
Americans to Cuba), Representative Kevin Brady ¶ (R-TX), the Republican ranking member on ¶ the House Ways and Means Committee,
¶ However,
outlined ¶ some of these drawbacks. Cuba’s
economic climate ¶ is intolerant of U.S. firms: there exists no accord ¶
on U.S. individual or corporate property claims. ¶ Indeed, in spite of the Obama administration’s ¶ move
to allow U.S. telecommunication firms to ¶ apply for licenses to conduct business in Cuba, ¶ few such
companies have rushed in. This is in ¶ no small part due to the important challenges ¶ associated with policy unpredictability under
the ¶ current Cuban regime, not to mention significant ¶ questions arising from issues of human rights and ¶ labor relations. In spite of these
considerations, at ¶ the time of this publication, H.R. 4645 had been ¶ approved in the House Agriculture Committee and awaited further
consideration on the Foreign ¶ Affairs and Financial Services committees before ¶ reaching the House floor.¶ Whether or not one agrees with
the U.S. ¶ embargo against Cuba, what must be kept in ¶ mind is the fact that the embargo is there for ¶ reasons of human rights, argued
Christopher ¶ Sabatini, policy director at the Council of the ¶ Americas, and that has been how the embargo ¶ been defended. And in this we
can’t lose sight of ¶ the fact that Cuba’s record on human rights is ¶ abysmal. The regime currently has detained over ¶ 200 political prisoners,
many of whom have been ¶ arrested for the vague charge of “dangerousness.” ¶ Cuba violates freedom of association, strictly limits ¶ freedom
of expression, and systematically violates ¶ the core covenants of the International Labour ¶ Organization (ILO). When the debate strays from ¶
this central issue of rights, Sabatini stated, we lose ¶ sight of the real issues facing Cuba and Cuban ¶ citizens today. For this reason, any and all
changes ¶ to the U.S. embargo must first and foremost be ¶ geared toward strengthening the hand of the island’s ¶ independent sectors.
According to Sabatini, ¶ there is broad scope in the United States for the ¶ executive to make regulatory changes that can ¶ give U.S. businesses
and institutional actors greater ¶ scope to begin developing closer relations inside ¶ Cuba. This is important because any change to the ¶ status
quo in bilateral economic relations will start ¶ with the executive’s authority over the embargo’s ¶ regulations. Indeed, a quick perusal of past
efforts at ¶ dismantling U.S. embargoes—in particular, against ¶ Vietnam—reveals that terminating an embargo ¶ has never been the result of a
straight up-or-down ¶ congressional vote. Instead, this has been the result ¶ of slight, incremental regulatory changes that have ¶ served to
allow independent actors to develop their ¶ own contacts with counterparts on the island and ¶ empower people. These made the incentives
for ¶ change easier to recognize, built an active, vested ¶ coalition supporting broader change, and made ¶ dismantling more palatable to
political audiences.¶ Sabatini noted that the ability to affect significant ¶ change on the embargo falls within the scope of ¶ executive regulatory
authority, particularly in areas ¶ such as telecommunications and some elements ¶ of travel—particularly in licensing for cultural and
educational exchanges and even some elements ¶ of marketing trips. In this sense the Obama ¶ administration took a first step on April 13,
2009, ¶ when President Obama announced an increased ¶ allowance for U.S. telecommunications companies ¶ to establish licensing
agreements to allow roaming ¶ coverage on the island and establish a fiberoptic ¶ cable to Cuba, with the stated purpose of helping ¶ Cubans
communicate with the rest of the world. ¶ However, according to Sabatini, it turned out that ¶ despite the fanfare, the regulations that came
out ¶ of the U.S. bureaucracy five months later did little ¶ realistically to allow U.S. companies to establish ¶ the necessary and sufficient links to
allow broad ¶ communication between Cubans and the rest of the ¶ world. For instance, in his announcement, President ¶ Obama called for the
establishment of a fiberoptic ¶ cable linking Cuba to the outside world. However, ¶ regulations prohibiting U.S. equipment transfers or ¶ sales to
the island for commercial purposes persist. ¶ Similarly, the regulations continued to prevent ¶ the sale of handsets on the island for commercial
¶ purposes and blocks infrastructure investments ¶ such as cell phone towers, routers, and switchers. ¶ All of these sorts of now-prohibited
equipment is ¶ essential if there is to be any meaningful broadbased access to the tools of communication. ¶ Sabatini contended that other
stated goals of the ¶ Obama administration have suffered a similar fate, ¶ yet he also claimed this does not mean all is lost. ¶ In his view
President Obama just needs to take ¶ the next step: with the stroke of the executive pen ¶ he can introduce regulatory modifications that can ¶
allow the federal bureaucracy to meet his stated ¶ goals regarding Cuba.¶ Regardless of the U.S. government’s actions, a ¶ post-embargo, postCastro Cuba does not necessarily ¶ imply a business bonanza for U.S. companies, ¶ added Professor José Azel of the University of ¶ Miami’s
Institute for Cuban and Cuban American ¶ Studies. Conventional wisdom holds that U.S. ¶ companies will rush in to invest in the island if and ¶
when the legal and political circumstances allow ¶ them. However, given Cuba’s
difficult economic ¶ situation, the
international community needs to ¶ significantly lower its expectations regarding U.S. ¶ foreign direct
investment in Cuba. Azel predicted ¶ that U.S. exports to Cuba will surge following a ¶ (hopefully) peaceful regime transition on the island; ¶
however, exports will not lead to the technological ¶ transfers, expertise, and capital requirements that ¶
the country will desperately need to grow its ¶ economy. The United States will obviously want ¶ to invest in a post-Castro
Cuba; but it is companies, ¶ not countries, that make investments.¶ To support his view, Azel explained the three ¶ principal reasons that
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
38
companies engage in foreign ¶ direct investment. First, companies are resource ¶ seeking; they invest to secure country-specific ¶ resources
available only within that market. Oil, ¶ nickel, and tourism are examples of such resources ¶ in Cuba. These have and will continue to attract a ¶
certain level of foreign direct investment, argued ¶ Azel, regardless of who is in power or the country’s ¶ market friendliness. Second,
companies are efficiency ¶ seeking; they invest to make efficiency gains. ¶ Companies
engage in foreign direct investment ¶ for this
reason because they are looking to take ¶ advantage of lower labor costs or of a privileged ¶ distribution
location. However, Cuba lacks an ideal ¶ labor force in comparison to that of its neighbors. ¶ After more than
half a century under a totalitarian ¶ regime and a centrally planned command economy, ¶ Cuba’s labor force has not
been able to develop ¶ the kind of efficiencies needed to attract foreign ¶ direct investment. Finally, companies
are market ¶ seeking; they invest to establish a foothold in a new ¶ market that is deemed strategic or dense.
However, market that is deemed strategic or dense. However, ¶ while the island nation has more than eleven ¶ million
citizens, its impoverishment means that its ¶ market has few effective consumers. A far more ¶ rational strategy
to supply a market exhibiting ¶ these conditions would be to manufacture finished ¶ goods elsewhere and export them to Cuba.¶ Azel
contended that, while a
rational cost-benefit ¶ analysis could discourage U.S. companies from ¶ investing in
Cuba, Cuban American entrepreneurs ¶ may not engage in purely rational thinking on the ¶ topic, as they are also guided in part by emotional
motivations, such as familial and cultural ties to their ¶ homeland. Cuban Americans investing in Cuba can ¶ also more easily overcome the
innate disadvantages of ¶ being a foreigner that inevitably arise in foreign markets. ¶ For these reasons, Azel believes that Havana’s best bet ¶ in
attracting foreign direct investment is to encourage ¶ the Cuban American community to act as the island’s ¶ “first movers.” Small- and
medium-sized Cuban ¶ American entrepreneurs could set up small businesses ¶ in the island, but also middle- and senior-level Cuban ¶
American executives in multinational corporations ¶ could act as champions of the island’s foreign investment.
39
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Turn
Turn—lifting the embargo makes the situation worse for a laundry list of reasons
Suchlicki, Director of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the
University of Miami, 00
(Jaime, 6/2000, University of Miami, “The U.S. Embargo of Cuba,”
http://www6.miami.edu/iccas/USEmbargo.pdf, p. 2-4, accessed 6/24/13, IC)
Introduction ¶ Opponents
of U.S. policy toward Cuba claim that if the embargo and ¶ the travel ban are lifted, the
Cuban people would benefit economically; ¶ American companies will penetrate and influence the
Cuban market; the ¶ Communist system would begin to crumble and a transition to a democratic ¶
society would be accelerated. ¶ These expectations are based on several incorrect assumptions. First, ¶ that
Castro and the Cuban leadership are naïve and inexperienced and, ¶ therefore, would allow tourists and
investments from the U.S. to subvert the ¶ revolution and influence internal developments in the
island. Second, that ¶ Cuba would open up and allow U.S. investments in all sectors of the ¶ economy,
instead of selecting which companies could trade and invest. ¶ Third, that Castro is so interested in close
relations with the U.S. that he is ¶ willing to risk what has been upper-most in his mind for 40 years – total ¶ control of
power and a legacy of opposition to “Yankee imperialism,” – in ¶ exchange for economic improvements
for his people. During the Fifth ¶ Communist Party Congress in 1997, Castro emphasized “We will do what is ¶ necessary
without renouncing our principles. We do not like capitalism and ¶ we will not abandon our Socialist
system.” ¶ Castro also reiterated his long-standing anti-American posture, ¶ accusing the U.S. of waging economic war against his
government and ¶ calling for “military preparedness against imperialist hostility.” A change in U.S. policy toward Cuba may have
different and ¶ unintended results. The lifting of the embargo and the travel ban without ¶ meaningful changes in Cuba will:
¶ Guarantee the continuation of the current totalitarian structures. ¶ Strengthen state enterprises, since
money will flow into businesses ¶ owned by the Cuban government. Most businesses are owned in ¶ Cuba by the state and, in all foreign
investments, the Cuban ¶ government retains a partnership interest. ¶ Lead to greater repression and
control since Castro and the ¶ leadership will fear that U.S. influence will subvert the revolution ¶ and weaken the
Communist party’s hold on the Cuban people. ¶ Delay instead of accelerate a transition to democracy on the island.
¶ Allow Castro to borrow from international organizations such as ¶ the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Since Cuba owes
billions of dollars ¶ to the former Soviet Union, to the Club of Paris, and to others, and ¶ has refused in the past to
acknowledge or pay these debts, new ¶ loans will be wasted by Castro’s inefficient and wasteful system, ¶ and
will be uncollectible. The reason Castro has been unable to pay ¶ back loans is not because of the U.S. embargo, but because his ¶
economic system stifles productivity and he continues to spend on ¶ the military, on adventures abroad, and on supporting a bankrupt ¶
welfare system on the island. Perpetuate the rather extensive control that the military holds over ¶ the economy and foster the further
development of “Mafia type” ¶ groups that manage and profit from important sectors of the ¶ economy, particularly tourism, biotechnology,
Negate the basic tenets of U.S. policy in Latin America which ¶ emphasize democracy, human
rights, and market economies. ¶ Send the wrong message to the enemies of the U.S.: 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 U.S.; espouse terrorismand anti-U.S. causes throughout the ¶ world; and eventually the U.S. will “forget
and forgive,” and ¶ reward him with tourism, investments, and economic aid. ¶
and agriculture. ¶
Turn – Lifting the embargo would crush US-Latin American Relations – emboldened
Cuba.
Brookes, Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, 09,
(Peter, 4/16/2009, The Heritage Foundation, “Keep the Embargo, O”, http://www
.heritage.org/research/commentary/2009/04/keep-the-embargo-o, 6/28/2013)
In the end, though, it's still Fidel Castro and his brother Raul who'll decide whether there'll be a thaw in
ties with the United States -- or not.¶ And in usual Castro-style, Fidel himself stood defiant in response
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
40
to the White House proclamation, barely recognizing the US policy shift.¶ Instead, and predictably, Fidel
demanded an end to el bloqueo (the blockade) -- without any promises of change for the people who
labor under the regime's hard-line policies.¶ So much for the theory that if we're nice to them, they'll be
nice to us.¶ Many are concerned that the lack of love from Havana will lead Washington to make even
more unilateral concessions to create an opening with Fidel and the gang.¶ Of course, the big
empanada is the US economic embargo against Cuba, in place since 1962, which undoubtedly is the
thing Havana most wants done away with -- without any concessions on Cuba's part, of course.¶ Lifting
the embargo won't normalize relations, but instead legitimize -- and wave the white flag to -- Fidel's
50-year fight against the Yanquis, further lionizing the dictator and encouraging the Latin American
Left.¶ Because the economy is nationalized, trade will pour plenty of cash into the Cuban national
coffers -- allowing Havana to suppress dissent at home and bolster its communist agenda abroad.¶
The last thing we should do is to fill the pockets of a regime that'll use those profits to keep a jackboot
on the neck of the Cuban people. The political and human-rights situation in Cuba is grim enough
already. The police state controls the lives of 11 million Cubans in what has become an island prison. The
people enjoy none of the basic civil liberties -- no freedom of speech, press, assembly or association.¶
Security types monitor foreign journalists, restrict Internet access and foreign news and censor the
domestic media. The regime holds more than 200 political dissidents in jails that rats won't live in.¶ We
also don't need a pumped-up Cuba that could become a serious menace to US interests in Latin
America, the Caribbean -- or beyond. (The likes of China, Russia and Iran might also look to partner with
a revitalized Cuba.)
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**AT: Biotech**
41
42
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Cuban Biotech Fails
Cuban Bio tech is unprofitable and buisnesses don't want to invest in it
Scheye, CEO of The Scheye Group, ‘11 (Elaine, ACSE,“CUBAN HEALTHCARE AND BIOTECHNOLOGY:
REFORM, A BITTER PILL TO SWALLOW ¶ OR JUST WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED”
http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume21/pdfs/scheye.pdf, EB)
Cuba’s attractiveness to foreign investors remains negative. The Economic Intelligence Unit’s Country¶
Forecast for Cuba reports that “Cuba was one of the world’s least attractive foreign investment
destinations in the historical period 2005-09 and in spite of¶ some improvements, will remain and
extremely challenging place to do business in the forecast period¶ 2010–14.” The report goes on to say
that the prognosis for foreign business will remain limited, owing to the dominance by the state. The
limited space for private businesses, U.S. sanctions and monetary imbalances remain impediments to
attracting foreign business. However, the report notes that investors¶ who manage to surmount these
difficulties benefit¶ from low levels of crime and a highly educated labor¶ force (Morris).
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
43
Cooperation Not Key
Cuba doesn’t need to work with US on BioTech – Partnership with Brazil already
Cuba Standard.com, Cuban Business and Economic News, 12 (11/12/12,Cuba Standard.com, “Cuba
seeking Brazilian biotech partners”, http://www.cubastandard.com/2012/10/12/cuba-seeking-brazilianbiotech-partners/, 6/25/13, AC)
Cuba is seeking private partners to develop new bio-pharmaceutical products and for cooperation
between laboratories, Foreign Trade Minister Rodrigo Malmierca told Brazilian businesspeople during
a visit in São Paulo. Malmierca headed a Cuban delegation that met Oct. 9 with entrepreneurs affiliated
with the Federação das Indústrias do Estado de São Paulo (Fiesp). Some 40 percent of Brazil’s biotech
industry is clustered in São Paulo, according to Fiesp. “Beyond the embassy and consulate of Cuba in
São Paulo, I believe we have to use all possible channels,” Malmierca said at the end of the meeting,
according to a press release by Fiesp. “The two governments are negotiating with each other, but
companies can also do that. We’re not leaving out any possibility.” Brazilian companies are looking for
cooperation with Cuba in the use of existing Cuban products, the development of new products, as
well as the sale of Brazilian products in Cuba, said Ruy Baumer, a pharmaceutical industry official with
Fiesp. São Paulo-based Eurofarma Laboratórios has been working with Cuba’s CIMAB S.A. on the
development of cancer products since 2006. In 2010, Eurofarma began marketing Cuban cancer drug
CIMAher (nimotuzumab) in Brazil. The two countries are already cooperating in the production of
millions of doses of meningococcal vaccine A+C for Africa’s “meningitis belt,” distributed by the
United Nations’ World Health Organization. Cuba manufactures the polysaccharide components and
Brazil does the formulation and completes the final product. In 2011, Brazil and Cuba expanded their
cooperation, signing agreements for joint research of cancer and diabetes drugs. Under the
agreements, Brazil will make and distribute a Cuban diabetes drug and 11 cancer products. The
ministers also signed an agreement about clinical research cooperation on cancer vaccines. If fully
implemented, the 58 cooperation projects could generate $200 million worth of sales, according to
the Brazilian health ministry. The agreements involve Brazil’s Instituto Nacional do Câncer (Inca), the
National Agency of Sanitary Controls (Anvisa), the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), the ministry of
science and technology, and the Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (BNDES), as
well as “large Brazilian companies in the health sector,” according to the Brazilian health ministry. Under
the 2011 agreement, Brazilian-Cuban joint ventures would not only produce and distribute Cuban
drugs in Brazil, but export them to other countries. Brazilian officials expect Cuban-Brazilian drug
production in the South American country to contribute to the reduction of the trade deficit, because
Brazil is importing nearly all its inputs.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
44
**AT: Biodiversity**
No extinction
Easterbrook, New Republic Senior Fellow 3
(Gregg, senior fellow at the New Republic, “We're All Gonna Die!”,
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=)
If we're talking about doomsday - the end of human civilization - many scenarios simply don't
measure up. A single nuclear bomb ignited by terrorists, for example, would be awful beyond words, but life would go on. People and
machines might converge in ways that you and I would find ghastly, but from the standpoint of the future, they would probably represent an
adaptation. Environmental
collapse might make parts of the globe unpleasant, but considering that the
biosphere has survived ice ages, it wouldn't be the final curtain. Depression, which has become 10 times more
prevalent in Western nations in the postwar era, might grow so widespread that vast numbers of people would refuse to get out of bed, a
possibility that Petranek suggested in a doomsday talk at the Technology Entertainment Design conference in 2002. But Marcel Proust, as
miserable as he was, wrote Remembrance of Things Past while lying in bed.
Won’t collapse the environment
Washington Post 97
(“Diversity Is Not Enough to Ensure Hardy Ecosystems,” p. A03, l/n)
Ecologists have long maintained that diversity is one of nature’s greatest strengths, but new research suggests
that diversity alone does not guarantee strong ecosystems. In findings that could intensify the national
debate over endangered species and habitat conservation, three new studies suggest that a greater
abundance of plant and animal varieties does not always translate to better ecological health. At least
equally important, the research found, are the types of species and how they function together. “Having a long
list of Latin names isn’t always better than a shorter list of Latin names,” said Stanford University
biologist Peter Vitousek, co-author of one of the studies published in the journal Science. Separate
experiments in California, Minnesota and Sweden found that diversity often had little bearing on the
performance of ecosystems -- at least as measured by the growth and health of native plants. In fact, the
communities with the greatest biological richness were often the poorest when it came to
productivity and the cycling of nutrients. One study compared plant life on 50 remote islands in northern
Sweden that are prone to frequent wildfires from lightning strikes. Scientist David Wardle of Landcare Research in
Lincoln, New Zealand, and colleagues at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, found that islands
dominated by a few species of plants recovered more quickly than nearby islands with greater
biological diversity. Similar findings were reported by University of Minnesota researchers who
studied savannah grasses, and by Stanford’s Vitousek and colleague David Hooper, who concluded that
functional characteristics of plant species were more important than the number of varieties in determining how
ecosystems performed. “In aiming to protect natural ecosystems, we cannot just manage for species variety
alone,” the Stanford researchers wrote. British plant ecologist J.P. Grime, in a commentary summarizing the
research, said there is not yet “convincing evidence that species diversity and ecosystem function are
consistently and causally related.” “It could be argued,” he added, “that the tide is turning against the
notion of high biodiversity as a controller of ecosystem function and insurance against ecological
collapse.”
Adaptation and migration solve
45
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Ian Thompson et al. 9, Canadian Forest Service, Brendan Mackey, The Australian National University, The
Fenner School of Environment and Society, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, Steven McNulty, USDA
Forest Service, Alex Mosseler, Canadian Forest Service, 2009, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
“Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change” Convention on Biological Diversity
While resilience can
be attributed to many levels of organization of biodiversity, the genetic composition of species is
genet- ic diversity within a species, species diversity within a forested
community, and community or ecosystem diversity across a landscape and bioregion represent
expressions of biological diversity at different scales. The basis of all expressions of biological diversity is the genotypic
variation found in populations. The individuals that comprise populations at each level of ecological organization are
subject to natural se- lection and contribute to the adaptive capacity or re- silience of tree species and forest ecosystems
(Mull- er-Starck et al. 2005). Diversity at each of these levels has fostered natural (and artificial) regeneration of
the most fundamental. Molecular
forest ecosystems and facilitated their adaptation to dramatic climate changes that occurred during the quaternary period (review by: DeHayes
et al. 2000); this diversity must be maintained in the face of antici- pated changes from anthropogenic climate warming.
Genetic
diversity (e.g., additive genetic variance) within a species is important because it is the basis for the natural
selection of genotypes within popu- lations and species as they respond or adapt to en- vironmental changes (Fisher
1930, Pitelka 1988, Pease et al. 1989, Burger and Lynch 1995, Burdon and Thrall, 2001, Etterson 2004, Reusch et al. 2005, Schaberg et al. 2008).
The potential for evolutionary
change has been demonstrated in numerous long- term programmes based on
artificial selection (Fal- coner 1989), and genetic strategies for reforestation in the presence of rapid climate
change must focus on maintaining species diversity and genetic diversi- ty within species (Ledig and Kitzmiller 1992). In the face of
rapid environmental change, it is important to understand that the genetic diversity and adap- tive
capacity of forested ecosystems depends largely on in situ genetic variation within each population of a species
(Bradshaw 1991). Populations exposed to a rate of environmental change exceeding the rate at which populations can adapt, or disperse, may
be doomed to extinction (Lynch and Lande 1993, Burger and Lynch 1995). Genetic diversity deter- mines the range of fundamental ecophysiological tolerances of a species. It governs inter-specific competitive interactions, which, together with dispersal mechanisms, constitute
the fundamental de- terminants of potential species responses to change (Pease et al. 1989, Halpin 1997). In the past, plants
have
responded to dramatic changes in climate both through adaptation and migration (Davis and Shaw 2001). The
capacity for long-distance migration of plants by seed dispersal is particularly important in the event of rapid environmental change. Most, and
probably all, species are capable of long-distance seed disper- sal, despite morphological dispersal syndromes that would
indicate morphological adaptations primarily for short-distance dispersal (Cwyner and MacDon- ald 1986, Higgins et al. 2003). Assessments of
mean migration rates found no significant differences be- tween wind and animal dispersed plants (Wilkinson 1997, Higgins et al. 2003). Longdistance migration can also be strongly influenced by habitat suitabil- ity (Higgins and Richardson 1999) suggesting that rapid migration may
become more frequent and vis- ible with rapid changes in habitat suitability under scenarios of rapid climate change. The discrepancy between
estimated and observed migration rates during re-colonization of northern temperate forests following the retreat of glaciers can be accounted
for by the underestimation of long-distance disper- sal rates and events (Brunet and von Oheimb 1998, Clark 1998, Cain et al. 1998, 2000).
Nevertheless, concerns persist that potential migration and ad- aptation rates of many tree species may not be able to keep pace with
projected global warming (Davis 1989, Huntley 1991, Dyer 1995, Collingham et al. 1996, Malcolm et al. 2002). However, these models refer to
fundamental niches and generally ignore the ecological interactions that also govern species dis- tributions.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**AT: Democracy**
46
47
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Plan Helps Castro
Lifting the embargo strengthens Castro’s regime, not hurts it
Bustillo, Hispanic Heritage Foundation Gold Medallion Winner, and a former United States Senate
Page, May 9
(Mitchell, “Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo”,
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cubanembargo/, 6/24/13, AZ)
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 Cuban-Americans 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 Jay-Z. 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.¶ 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.¶ Still there is the idea that further increasing
American tourism to this nearby Caribbean island will at least aid their impoverished citizens in some
manner, but this is neither a straight-forward nor easy solution. From the annual throng of American
visitors, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio declared at a 2011 Western Hemisphere Subcommittee Hearing that
an estimated, “$4 billion a year flow directly to the Cuban government from remittances and travel by
Cuban Americans, which is perhaps the single largest source of revenue to the most repressive
government in the region.Ӧ These remittances are sent by Americans to help their Cuban families, not
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
48
support the Cuban government. It is also a common belief that the Cuban embargo is a leading cause of
poverty among the Cuban citizens and that lifting the embargo would go a long way toward improving
the Cuban standard of living. However, no amount of money can increase the living standards there as
long as their current regime stands. “After all, the authorities were already skimming 20 percent of the
remittances from Cuban-Americans and 90 percent of the salary paid to Cubans by non-American
foreign investors,” states Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Senior Fellow of The Center on Global Prosperity at The
Independent Institute.¶ However unfortunate it may be, Cuba, in its current state, is a nation consisting
only of a wealthy and powerful few and an impoverished and oppressed proletariat, who possess little
to no means to escape or even improve their fate. Lifting the trade embargo will not increase the
general prosperity of the Cuban people, but it will increase the prosperity of the government. Ergo, the
poverty and dire situation of the Cuban people cannot be blamed on the United States or the
embargo.¶ No doubt, it has been a fruitless 50 years since the embargo was enacted. Little has changed
as far as democracy and human rights are concerned. To maintain control, Cuba has “managed to offset
much of the effects over the years in large part because the Soviets subsidized the island for three
decades, because the regime welcomed Canadian, Mexican and European capital after the collapse of
the Berlin Wall, and because Venezuela is its new patron,” according to Llosa. However, Venezuela is
now undergoing a political transition of its own with the recent death of Hugo Chávez, its president for
the past 14 years, and the controversial election of Nicolás Maduro.¶ 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
49
Turn – Embargo Better
U.S. can force a change on Cuban political climate
Bustillo, Hispanic Heritage Foundation Gold Medallion Winner, 2013
[Mitchell, 5-9-13, International Policy Digest, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo,
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/, 6-30-13, GZ]
Venezuela is its new patron,” according to Llosa. However, Venezuela is now undergoing a political transition of its own with the
recent death of Hugo Chávez, its president for the past 14 years, and the controversial election of Nicolás Maduro. 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**AT: Solvency**
50
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
51
No Solvency—Tourism
No solvency – inadequate hotels and trades off with other tourist industries
Worgull, Featured Reporter from Kent State University, 1/30
(Samantha30 January 2013, HotelNewsNow.com, “Cuba supply hurdles limit post-embargo growth,”
http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/articles.aspx/9804/Cuba-supply-hurdles-limit-post-embargo-growth ,
Accessed 6/24/13. RJ)
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 Kongbased 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.Ӧ 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.”¶ 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 prodevelopment 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 have been approved but have yet to break ground.¶ Cuba and the
Caribbean¶ If
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: 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.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
52
No Solvency—Say No
Cuba doesn’t want US-Relations and the plan doesn’t solve for reform
Cave, NY Times Correspondent based in Mexico City, 11/19
(Damien, November 19 2013, New York Times, “Easing of Restrictions in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S.
Embargo,” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-foreasing-embargo.html?pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print , Accessed 6/24/13. RJ)
HAVANA — “If I could just get a lift,” said Francisco López, imagining the addition of a hydraulic elevator as he stood by a rusted Russian sedan
in his mechanic’s workshop here. All he needed was an investment from his brother in Miami or from a Cuban friend there who already sneaks
in brake pads and other parts for him.¶ The problem: Washington’s 50-year-old trade embargo, which prohibits even the most basic business
dealings across the 90 miles separating Cuba from the United States. Indeed, every time Mr. López’s friend in Florida accepts payment for a car
part destined for Cuba, he puts himself at risk of a fine of up to $65,000.¶ With Cuba cautiously introducing free-market changes that have
legalized hundreds of thousands of small private businesses over the past two years, new economic bonds between Cuba and the United States
have formed, creating new challenges, new possibilities — and a more complicated debate over the embargo.¶ The longstanding logic has been
that broad sanctions are necessary to suffocate the totalitarian government of Fidel and Raúl Castro. Now, especially for many Cubans who had
previously stayed on the sidelines in the battle over Cuba policy, a new argument against the embargo is gaining currency — that the tentative
move toward capitalism by the Cuban government could be sped up with more assistance from Americans.¶ Even as defenders of the embargo
warn against providing the Cuban government with “economic lifelines,” some Cubans and exiles are advocating a fresh approach. The Obama
administration already showed an openness to engagement with Cuba in 2009 by removing restrictions on travel and remittances for Cuban
Americans. But with Fidel Castro, 86, retired and President Raúl Castro, 81, leading a bureaucracy that is divided on the pace and scope of
change, many have begun urging President Obama to go further and update American policy by putting a priority on assistance for Cubans
seeking more economic independence from the government.¶ “Maintaining this embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen
and embolden the hard-liners,” said Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban exile and co-chairman of the Cuba Study Group in Washington, which advocates
engagement with Cuba. “What we should be doing is helping the reformers.”¶ Any easing would be a gamble. Free
enterprise may not
necessarily lead to the embargo’s goal of free elections, especially because Cuba has said it wants to replicate
the paths of Vietnam and China, where the loosening of economic restrictions has not led to political
change. Indeed, Cuban officials have become adept at using previous American efforts to soften the embargo to their
advantage, taking a cut of dollars converted into pesos and marking up the prices at state-owned stores.¶ And Cuba has a long
history of tossing ice on warming relations. The latest example is the jailing of Alan Gross, a State Department
contractor who has spent nearly three years behind bars for distributing satellite telephone equipment to Jewish groups in Havana.¶ In
Washington, Mr. Gross is seen as the main impediment to an easing of the embargo, but there are also limits to what the president could do
without Congressional action. The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act conditioned the waiving of sanctions on the introduction of democratic changes
inside Cuba. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act also requires that the embargo remain until Cuba has a transitional or democratically elected
government. Obama administration officials say they have not given up, and could move if the president decides to act on his own. Officials say
that under the Treasury Department’s licensing and regulation-writing authority, there is room for significant modification. Following the legal
logic of Mr. Obama’s changes in 2009, further expansions in travel are possible along with new allowances for investment or imports and
exports, especially if narrowly applied to Cuban businesses.¶ Even these adjustments — which could also include travel for all Americans and
looser rules for ships engaged in trade with Cuba, according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Cuba Study Group — would probably mean
a fierce political fight. The handful of Cuban-Americans in Congress for whom the embargo is sacred oppose looser rules. ¶ When asked about
Cuban entrepreneurs who are seeking more American support, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Florida Republican who is chairwoman
of the House Foreign Relations Committee, proposed an even tighter embargo.¶ “The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact,
should be strengthened, and not be altered,” she wrote in an e-mail. “Responsible nations must not buy into the facade the dictatorship is
trying to create by announcing ‘reforms’ while, in reality, it’s tightening its grip on its people.”¶ Many Cubans agree that their government cares
more about control than economic growth. Business owners complain that inspectors pounce when they see signs of success and demand
receipts to prove that supplies were not stolen from the government, a common practice here. One restaurant owner in Havana said he
received a large fine for failing to produce a receipt for plastic wrap.¶ Cuban officials say the shortages fueling the black market are caused by
the embargo. But mostly they prefer to discuss the policy in familiar terms. They take reporter after reporter to hospitals of frail infants, where
American medical exports are allowed under a humanitarian exception. Few companies bother, however, largely because of a rule, unique to
Cuba, requiring that the American companies do on-site monitoring to make sure products are not used for weapons.¶ “The Treasury
Department is asking me, in a children’s hospital, if I use, for example, catheters for military uses — chemical, nuclear or biological,” said Dr.
Eugenio Selman, director of the William Soler Pediatric Cardiology Center.¶ As for the embargo’s restriction on investment, Cuban officials have
expressed feelings that are more mixed. At a meeting in New York in September with a group called Cuban Americans for Engagement, Cuba’s
foreign minister, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, said business investment was not a priority.¶ “Today the economic development of Cuba does not
demand investments of $100,000, $200,000, $300,000,” he said, according to the group’s account of the meeting. Rather, he called for
hundreds of millions of dollars to expand a local port.¶ Owners of Cuba’s small businesses, mostly one-person operations at this point, say they
know that the government would most likely find ways to profit from wider economic relations with the United States. The response to the
informal imports that come from Miami in the suitcases of relatives, for instance, has been higher customs duties.¶ Still, in a country where
Cubans “resolve” their way around government restrictions every day (private deals with customs agents are common), many Cubans
anticipate real benefits should the United States change course. Mr. López, a meticulous mechanic who wears plastic gloves to avoid dirtying
his fingers, said legalizing imports and investment would create a flood of the supplies that businesses needed, overwhelming the government’s
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
53
controls while lowering prices and creating more work apart from the state.¶ Other Cubans, including political dissidents, say softening the
embargo would increase the pressure for more rapid change by undermining one of the government’s main excuses for failing to provide
freedom, economic opportunity or just basic supplies.¶ “Last month, someone asked me to redo their kitchen, but I told them I couldn’t do it
because I didn’t have the materials,” said Pedro José, 49, a licensed carpenter in Havana who did not want his last name published to avoid
government pressure.¶ “Look around — Cuba is destroyed,” he added, waving a hand toward a colonial building blushing with circles of faded
pink paint from the 1950s. “There is a lot of work to be done.”
54
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Gradualism Turn
Gradual Lift Coming Soon – Business Leaders pushing for Reform
Lobe ’08 (Jim Lobe, 12/7/2008, InterPress Service,
http://www.ipsnews.net/2008/12/us-cuba-business-support-for-dismantlingembargo/, accessed 6/29/13, WP)
If U.S. President-elect Barack Obama wants to begin dismantling Washington's nearly 50-year-old
trade embargo against Cuba, it appears he will have widespread support for doing so.¶ Not only have some
major foreign policy heavyweights recently called for ending the embargo if, for no other reason, than to create desperately needed goodwill
elsewhere in the Americas and beyond.¶ But major
U.S. business groups also appear more enthusiastic than ever
for pushing the incoming administration and the most Democratic Congress in some 20 years in that
direction, although they concede the process may be more gradual than they would like.¶ "We support the complete removal
of all trade and travel restrictions on Cuba," a dozen such business associations, including the politically potent
Business Roundtable, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Retail Federation, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote, in a letter
addressed to Obama Thursday.¶ "We recognize that change
may not come all at once, but it must start somewhere,
and it must begin soon," they added, noting that Washington's trade embargo and its long-standing efforts to isolate Havana for
national security reasons during the Cold War have "far outlasted [their] original purpose."¶ The letter, which was drafted by Jake Colvin, vice
president for Global Trade Issues of the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), is the latest in a series of public statements by prominent
foreign policy figures and institutions in favor of easing, if not abandoning, Washington's efforts to isolate Havana.¶ Last May, a high-level,
bipartisan Latin America task force of the influential Council on Foreign Relations issued a 76-page report that, among other things, called for
any incoming U.S. administration to repeal the economic and travel sanctions Washington has imposed against Cuba over the past 15 years and
engage Havana on a range of issues of mutual concern with a view to ending the embargo and normalizing ties.¶ And just two weeks ago, an
inter-American commission sponsored by the Washington-based Brookings Institution, from pwhich the new administration is expected to
recruit key policymakers, and co-chaired by former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo and former U.S. UN Ambassador Thomas Pickering went
further yet.¶ In
addition to easing the embargo and directly engaging the government of President Raul
Castro, it urged that Cuba immediately be removed from the State Department's list of state sponsors
of terrorism, end restrictions on humanitarian aid there, reintegrate Cuba into regional and global economic and political organizations,
and lift all travel restrictions on the island.¶ The report noted that Washington's decades-long hostility toward Havana had "disproportionately
dominated U.S. policy toward the LAC region for years [and] have hindered Washington's ability to work constructively with other countries."¶
During this year's presidential campaign, Obama himself had pledged to open talks with the Cuban
government without preconditions and to relax the embargo – by repealing regulations promulgated
by President George W. Bush – that limited both travel by Cuban Americans to their homeland and
their ability to send remittances to their families there.
An immediate lift of the embargo isn’t attracting political support – an
incremental removal of the embargo is much more realistic.
Zimmerman ’08 (Chelsea A. Zimmerman, “Rethinking the Cuban Trade Embargo: An
Opportune Time to Mend a Broken Policy” , accessed 6/24/13,
http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Fellows2010/Zimmerman.pdf,
WP)
While there appears to be broad agreement on the overall objective of the current U.S. economic
policies with Cuba— to promot[ion] [of] democracy and respect for human rights in Cuba— there are several schools of thought on how
to achieve that objective (Schwab, 79). I am recommending incremental modifications in the current trade
and travel relationship between the United States and Cuba which over time will allow U.S. citizens to
trade with, invest in, and travel to Cuba and at the same time will encourage the democratization of
Cuba. I am also recommending that implementation of these reforms not be conditioned on changes in Cuban policy. Trade levels between Cuba and the U.S. could reach $5 billion
annually by removing the trade embargo, resulting in a boost to American agribusinesses while also helping to alleviate hunger among Cubans. A policy environment open to international
trade and investment is a necessary ingredient to sustain higher rates of economic growth and to promote political freedom through exposure to new technology, communications, and
democratic ideas (Griswold, 1; Sachs and Warner). Allowing Cuba to more freely import U.S. food is a means of lowering domestic prices and increasing incomes of the poor, food availability
and domestic production. U.S. companies will introduce new technologies and production methods, while raising wages and labor standards as a result of trading with Cuba. The additional
creation of wealth will help to advance social, political, and economic conditions independent of the governing authorities in Cuba. The most economically open countries today are more than
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
55
three times as likely to enjoy full political and civil freedoms as those that are relatively closed (Griswold, 1). Lifting certain trade restrictions would assist Cuba in its efforts to recover from the
damage caused by its recent hurricanes. If the U.S. exempted construction equipment and agricultural machinery from the Cuban trade ban through regulatory action, the Cuban people could
benefit from the loosening of restrictions without overhauling the entire embargo. By allowing free travel to and from Cuba, potential for the marketing and sale of agricultural and medical
goods would expand enormously, further boosting the economies of the U.S. and Cuba. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimated that if travel restrictions to Cuba were lifted, the
number of U.S. travelers would increase from less than 200,000 to between 550,00 and one million annually (U.S. International Trade Commission). The increase in U.S. visitors would in turn
increase demand for more and higher quality goods and would provide more money for the government to purchase U.S. goods, according to the Commission report. Allowing U.S. citizens to
travel to Cuba would boost the tourism industry in the U.S. and create thousands of new jobs. Even lifting the travel restrictions on groups or individuals directly engaged in U.S. agricultural
sales to Cuba would be a significant advancement. Business leaders and entrepreneurs from the U.S. would gain a competitive edge by having the opportunity to travel to Cuba and becoming
Elimination of the trade embargo immediately is not a
feasible solution, as such a proposal would not attract sufficient political support. Furthermore, the
Cuban political and legal infrastructure does not have the capability of adapting to such a radical
change. Instead, I recommend incremental measures that would 1) reduce the restrictions on the
financing of Cuba’s purchase of U.S. products by allowing payments to be made directly to U.S. banks;
and 2) reduce and eventually eliminate the restrictions on travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba by initially
permitting travel for educational and cultural purposes and eventually permitting direct commercial
flights from the U.S. to Cuba. The U.S. International Trade Commission’s analysis of the effects of government restrictions on export financing estimates that the U.S.
familiar with the Cuban market and meting face-to-face with their Cuban counterparts.
share of Cuban agricultural, fish and forest product imports would increase between one-half and two-thirds, and that all U.S. agricultural sectors would benefit from the lifting of financing
restrictions (U.S. International Trade Commission). The Commission also studied the effect on U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba if travel restrictions were eliminated, and concluded that significant
increases in U.S. exports of processed foods, poultry, beef and pork and fish would result (U.S. International Trade Commission) This proposal sets forth multiple reasons for the failure of the
U.S. policy of economic sanctions to promote democracy in Cuba, but I will now focus on the costs and benefits of a gradual modification of the current policy. The U.S. needs to adopt a new
approach to Cuba that is not based on sanctions, passivity, and waiting. The U.S. government should instead take a more pragmatic approach when trying to encourage change in Cuba,
especially with the opportunity created by the change in leadership of both countries and with the recent reforms announced by Raul Castro which will over time eliminate the state’s
The opportunities involved in gradually loosening trade restrictions with Cuba and
promoting cooperation on issues of mutual benefit far outweigh the risks. Benefits for the U.S. in
reducing financing restrictions and travel restrictions with Cuba include the following: 1) U.S.
agribusinesses will benefit from substantial revenue increases derived from a more significant share
of food exports to Cuba, from reduced transportation costs and delays caused by travel restrictions, and from the elimination of cumbersome payment requirements; 2)
the U.S. government will benefit from additional tax revenues on the increase in sales; 3) funds
wasted on attempts to de-legitimize the Castro regime, such as Radio and TV Marti, estimated to be in excess of $35
million annually, instead can be used for more productive purposes, such as academic and cultural exchanges; 4) the U.S.
Treasury’s administrative expenses of enforcing complex financing restrictions and investigating illegal
U.S. investments and travel to Cuba will be reduced and redirected to a more practical use, such as investigating
terrorist networks abroad; and 5) improved foreign relations with some of the U.S.’s most important allies including
the European Union and OAS partners will result from the reform measures (Sweig). Offsetting these
benefits are the costs of enforcement of increased trade activities and travel with Cuba as well as the
reality that these measures will not force the collapse of Cuban communism or result in a rapid
transition to a democratic government. The probability of implementing these changes within the
next six months seems likely. The political strength of the farm lobby has eclipsed the power of
Florida’s Cuban-American community, which did not play a significant role in the election of President
Obama. Because all of these reform measures, with the exception of lifting the travel ban, can be
adopted through administrative action rather than Congressional or executive action,1 a political
showdown would not be necessary to accomplish these measures¶
information monopoly.
56
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Gradulaism – Ext.
Gradual Removal Key
Arzeno, MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE Strategy, ‘00
(Mario, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=727317, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
Castro’s time in power is short and Cuba without Castro is extremely vulnerable to becoming a rogue
state with the elements of transnational threats at Cuba’s doorstep once he is gone. The Cuban
American National Foundation grows weaker everyday and American public opinion that believes
change must happen grows stronger everyday. The time for change in Cuba is now. Fidel Castro’s
presence in Cuba should be inconsequential to that change. A gradual lifting of the embargo should
begin today with the United States committed to engaging Cuba in order to prevent Cuba from
becoming a threat to the United States in the future.
Gradual Removal is the way to go
Whitney, Author for People's World, ‘10
(W.T., 10/28/10, http://www.peoplesworld.org/un-general-assembly-condemns-u-scuba-blockade/, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
By gradually lifting the embargo it shifts any blame for current ecomomic issues to the Cuban
government. Right now its so easy for Cuba to blame the US for all it sorrows by gradually lifting the
embargo it shifts any blame for current ecomomic issues to the Cuban government. Right now its so
easy for Cuba to blame the US for all it sorrows. Cuba can easily report looks how cruel the US is
to Cubans with the whole world on Cuba's side and only the US and a couple others against
Cuba. By lifting the embargo, gradually., Cuban start to get a taste of freedom. Right now how
would a Cuban know what its like to have choice. IMHO the reason why China was partially
forced to allow for a free market is because of Hong Kong. Give Cuba but a taste and they will want
more.
Gradual investment k2 economic prosperity
Zimbalist, Professor of Economics at Smith College, ‘94
(Andrew, 2/17/94, http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/17/opinion/liberate-cubaliberate-us-lift-the-embargo-now-give-castro-a-carrot.html, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
Over the last three years, Cuba has received $500 million in foreign capital through 112 joint 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 billions of dollars in prospective investments. 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.
The Lifting of the Embargo must be Gradual
Peters, Member of the Lexington institute and advisor to the House of
Representatives , ‘12
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
57
(Phil, 2/10/12, http://cubantriangle.blogspot.com/2012/02/happy-embargoversary.html, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
The lifting of the embargo should be done gradually and through the negotiation of all outstanding
issues between both countries and the implementation by stages of all the reforms Cuba needs. It is
the sole remaining instrument for the US to use in influencing Cuba's policies and the US should not
hesitate to do so or feel guilty for doing so. This would be both in the best interest of the Cuban people
and of the US itself. A return to multiparty democracy and to a market economy would be the fastest
possible way for the island to integrate efficiently to economic progress and to the competitive global
society.
Gradualism is key—Empirics Prove
The Ledger, Floridian Newspaper, ‘11
(4/24/11,
http://www.theledger.com/article/20110824/edit01/110829730?p=1&tc=pg,
accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
But it's also apparent that the Cuban government is taking steps that Americans should encourage
with policies that reward reform and progress. Revoking the moderate tourism policy, as the House
committee proposes, would represent a punitive step backward by the United States. A better approach
toward Cuba would entail a gradual lifting of the economic embargo and measured moves toward the
establishment of normal diplomatic relationships. If the liberalization of Cuba's private-property laws
moves forward, that development could be — and should be — a trigger for easing the embargo and
establishing political ties. Benchmarks, including the protection of private assets, could be created in
order to promote additional progress. The United States should not change its hard-line policy to
coddle the Castros. America should change its policy because Cuba is changing.
58
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Squo Solves
Cuba and the US work together behind the scenes in the status quo
Haven, staff writer for the AP, 4-10
(Paul, Associated Press, “Under the radar, Cuba and U.S. often work together,”
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/under-radar-cuba-and-us-often-work-together,
6/30/13, ND)
Indeed, diplomats and observers on
both sides of the Florida Straits say American and Cuban law
enforcement officers, scientists, disaster relief workers, Coast Guard officials and other experts work
together on a daily basis, and invariably express professional admiration for each other.¶ "I don't think the story
has been told, but there is a real warmth in just the sort of day-to-day relations between U.S. and Cuban
government officials," said Dan Whittle, who frequently brings scientific groups to the island in his role as Cuba program director for
the Environmental Defense Fund. "Nearly every time I talk to American officials, they say they were impressed by their
Cuban counterparts. There really is a high level of mutual respect."¶ Almost none of these technical-level
interactions make the headlines, but examples are endless. Just last week, Cuba's top environmental official Ulises
Fernandez and several island oil experts attended a conference in New York of the International
Association of Drilling Contractors after the State Department expedited their visas.¶ The American government
maintains a Coast Guard representative in Cuba, and the two countries work together to interdict suspicious
boats. A U.S. diplomat involved in the process said that security officials on both sides are on a first-name basis and
that the Cubans happily accept FBI and Coast Guard baseball caps as gifts.¶ "There are so many weird and abnormal
aspects of the relationship between Cuba and the United States, things that don't occur between other countries, that when something normal
happens it is a surprise," said Carlos Alzugaray, a former Cuban diplomat.¶ He said Cuba
has in recent years taken a pragmatic
approach, more often than not cooperating on drug enforcement and judicial issues. "It is important to
highlight ... that in judicial matters there is a willingness to cooperate and that could open a path to other
types of cooperation," he said, citing the return of Joshua Michael Hakken and his wife, Sharyn, as a case in point.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Off Case**
59
60
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Politics**
61
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Link – General
Plan popular – change in political atmosphere means Obama won’t lose PC
AP 6/21
(Associated Press, WDEF News, “Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles,”
http://www.wdef.com/news/world/story/Cuba-US-try-talking-but-face-manyobstacles/NF6nxerKV0SVtDgeVp-G0A.cspx, 6/23. RJ)
HAVANA (AP) — They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some baby steps toward rapprochement in
recent weeks that have people on this island and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over
the horizon.¶ Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times before, only to fall back into old recriminations. But
there are signs that views might be shifting on both sides of the Florida Straits.¶ In the past week, the two countries have held talks on
resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban
intelligence agent to return to the island. This month, Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it
would let an American doctor examine him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. Castro
has also ushered in a series of
economic and social changes, including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island.¶ Under the radar, diplomats on
both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings.¶ Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy
footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. Today, U.S.
diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers.¶ Josefina
Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently traveled to Washington and met twice with State Department officials — a visit
that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had been suspended for more than two years.
Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's president.¶
"These recent steps indicate a desire on both sides to try to move forward, but also a recognition on
both sides of just how difficult it is to make real progress," said Robert Pastor, a professor of international relations at
American University and former national security adviser on Latin America during the Carter administration. "These are tiny, incremental gains,
and the prospects of going backwards are equally high."¶ Among the things that have changed, John Kerry has taken over as U.S. secretary of
state after being an outspoken critic of Washington's policy on Cuba while in the Senate. President Barack Obama no longer has re-election
concerns while dealing with the Cuban-American electorate in Florida, where there
are also indications of a warming attitude
to negotiating with Cuba.¶ Cuban President Raul Castro, meanwhile, is striving to overhaul the island's Marxist economy with a dose of
limited free-market capitalism and may feel a need for more open relations with the U.S. While direct American investment is still barred on the
island, a rise in visits and money transfers by Cuban-Americans since Obama relaxed restrictions has been a boon for Cuba's cash-starved
economy. Under the table, Cuban-Americans are also helping relatives on the island start private businesses and refurbish homes bought under
Castro's limited free-market reforms.¶ Several prominent Cuban dissidents have been allowed to travel recently due to Castro's changes. The
trips have been applauded by Washington, and also may have lessened Havana's worries about the threat posed by dissidents.¶ Likewise, a U.S.
federal judge's decision to allow Cuban spy Rene Gonzalez to return home was met with only muted criticism inside the United States, perhaps
emboldening U.S. diplomats to seek further openings with Cuba.¶ To be sure, there is still far more that separates the long-time antagonists
than unites them.¶ The State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and another that calls into question Havana's
commitment to fighting human trafficking. The Obama administration continues to demand democratic change on an island ruled for more
than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel.¶ For its part, Cuba continues to denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic embargo.¶
And then there is Gross, the 64-year-old Maryland native who was arrested in 2009 and is serving a 15-year jail sentence for bringing
communications equipment to the island illegally. His case has scuttled efforts at engagement in the past, and could do so again, U.S. officials
say privately. Cuba has indicated it wants to trade Gross for four Cuban agents serving long jail terms in the United States, something
Washington has said it won't consider.¶ Ted Henken, a professor of Latin American studies at Baruch College in New York who helped organize
a recent U.S. tour by Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez, said the Obama administration is too concerned with upsetting Cuban-American
politicians and has missed opportunities to engage with Cuba at a crucial time in its history.¶ "I think that a lot more would have to happen for
this to amount to momentum leading to any kind of major diplomatic breakthrough," he said. "Obama should be bolder and more audacious."¶
Even these limited moves have sparked fierce criticism by those long opposed to engagement. Cuban-American congressman Mario Diaz Balart,
a Florida Republican, called the recent overtures "disturbing."¶ "Rather than attempting to legitimize the Cuban people's oppressors, the
administration should demand that the regime stop harboring fugitives from U.S. justice, release all political prisoners and American
humanitarian aid worker Alan Gross, end the brutal, escalating repression against the Cuban people, and respect basic human rights," he said.¶
Another Cuban-American politician from Florida, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, scolded Obama for seeking "dialogue with the dictatorship."¶
Despite that rhetoric, many
experts think Obama would face less political fallout at home if he chose
engagement because younger Cuban-Americans seem more open to improved ties than those who fled
immediately after the 1959 revolution.¶ Of 10 Cuban-Americans interview by The Associated Press on Thursday at the popular Miami
restaurant Versailles, a de facto headquarters of the exile community, only two said they were opposed to the U.S. holding migration talks.
Several said they hoped for much more movement.¶ Jose Gonzalez, 55, a shipping industry supervisor who was born in Cuba and came to the
U.S. at age 12, said he now favors an end to the embargo and the resumption of formal diplomatic ties. "There was a reason that existed but it
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
62
doesn't anymore," he said.¶ Santiago Portal, a 65-year-old engineer who moved to the U.S. 45 years ago, said more dialogue would be good.
"The more exchange of all types the closer Cuba will be to democracy," he said.¶ Those opinions dovetail with a 2011 poll by Florida
International University of 648 randomly selected Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade County that said 58 percent favored re-establishing
diplomatic relations with Cuba. That was a considerable increase from a survey in 1993, when 80 percent of people polled said they did not
support trade or diplomatic relations with Cuba.¶ "In general, there
is an open attitude, certainly toward re-establishing
diplomatic relations," said Jorge Duany, director of the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University. "Short of perhaps
lifting the embargo ... there seems to be increasing support for some sort of understanding with the Cuban government."
Plan popular – key republican supports bill
CNN 09
(February 23, 2009, CNNPolitics.com, “Key GOP senator calls Cuba embargo ineffective,”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/23/cuba.lugar/, ACCESSED 6/24, RJ)
Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a draft report Monday saying it
is time to reconsider longtime U.S. economic sanctions on Cuba.¶ "After 47 years ... the unilateral
embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of 'bringing democracy to the Cuban
people,' " Lugar, R-Indiana, wrote in a letter that accompanied the report.¶ "The current U.S. policy has many passionate defenders, and
their criticism of the Castro regime is justified. Nevertheless, we must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy
and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests."¶ Lugar's letter preceded a 21-page draft
report by the Republican members of the committee titled "Changing Cuba Policy -- In the United States National Interest."¶ U.S. officials long
have defended the trade embargo on Cuba -- initiated in 1962 -- as a way of pressuring the communist nation and its leaders, Fidel Castro and
his brother, Raul, the country's current president, to move toward democracy.¶ The United States also has imposed travel restrictions on Cuba,
which lies 90 miles south of Florida.¶ In October, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution urging the United States to end its trade
embargo on Cuba -- a vote that was praised by Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque as "a clear and direct message to the next president
of the United States about the necessity to change this obsolete and cruel policy."¶ During his candidacy, President
Obama said that
he would be willing to meet with Cuba's leaders as well as the leadership of other countries that do
not have diplomatic ties with the United States.¶ A month after Obama's election, Fidel Castro penned an essay
in which he said he would be open to the idea of meeting with the new U.S. leader.¶ But the communist
leader warned that Obama "must be reminded that the carrot-and-stick theory cannot be applied in our country."
Plan popular – empirics prove
Weinmann, Senior Fellow Director of the World Policy Institute, 04
(LissaWorld Policy Journals, “Washington’s Irrational Cuba Policy,” eLibrary, Accessed June 24, 2013, RJ)
Just as the Cuban-American community and Florida are changing, so is the U.S. Congress. Sentiment among lawmakers has
shifted dramatically in favor of easing the embargo on Cuba. The passage of the 2000 Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which lifted the ban on food sales to Cuba, was propelled chiefly by farmstate Republicans, one of the leaders being the former senator from Missouri, John Ashcroft. The new law encourages those who
doubted the embargo could be eased in an election year. Momentum has continued to build. Fifty-two members of the House
and twelve senators have formed bipartisan Cuba working groups, which function as caucuses to help rally action on Cuba.¶ While the Bush
administration has clamped down, Congress
has focused its efforts on opening travel to Cuba. Rep. Jeff Flake, an
Arizona Republican and former executive director of the Barry Goldwater Institute, has led the fight in the House: "At some point, we
need to concede that our current approach has failed and try something new.... If we are serious about
undermining Castro and bringing freedom and democracy to that island, why not let Americans travel there with that message?"3
Support for bill growing now – Florida rep
Meinhardt, Staff Writer for Tampa Bay Business Journal, 3/27
(Jaane, Mar 27, 2013, Tampa Bay Business Journal, “Florida Congresswoman Castor reveals support for
ending Cuban embargo,” http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/blog/morningedition/2013/03/florida-congresswoman-castor-reveals.html , ACCESSED June 27, 2013, RJ)
U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor believes it is time to end the embargo against Cuba. The Tampa Democrat
voiced those thoughts and made history by becoming the first Florida member of Congress to publicly
support lifting the embargo when she made a speech March 22 at an evening reception at Mise en
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
63
Place for the Rapprochement With Cuba conference. “It is time for the U.S. to modernize its
relationship with Cuba, lift the embargo and end restrictions on American’s rights to travel to Cuba,”
Castor said in an exclusive statement to the Tampa Bay Business Journal. Florida’s members of
Congress, particularly those representing South Florida, have for years been staunch, vocal supporters
of the Cuban embargo. The embargo, instituted about 51 years ago, imposes economic sanctions,
restrictions on travel to the island and prohibits — with a few exceptions — trade and business with
Cuba.
64
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Link – Capital
Obama will be forced to spend political capital – only presidential support can give it
the momentum for it to pass
Padgett, Miami and Latin America Bureau Chief at Time, 10
(Tim, 8/23/10, “Will the White House Fight to End the Cuba Travel Ban?”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2013820,00.html, acessed
6/29/13, IC)
After it looked a couple of months ago as if a
bill lifting the ban on U.S. travel to Cuba had the momentum to pass Congress, it
now appears stalled in the House of Representatives. The bill, which would also make food sales to Cuba easier, cleared the House
Agriculture Committee but still needs a vote in two other committees — Financial Services and Foreign Affairs — and it may not even come up
for a full vote this year. So as reports surface that the
Obama Administration plans on its own to expand legal travel
opportunities to Cuba, the question is whether such a move will spur or spoil the House bill — whose
passage would mark the biggest shift in U.S. Cuba policy since a trade embargo was issued against the communist island in 1962.¶ President
Obama, according to Administration and congressional sources, intends before the year is out to loosen restrictions on visits to Cuba by U.S.
students, entertainers and other goodwill ambassadors. Backers of increased American engagement with Cuba applaud the proposal, which is
part of the President's executive prerogative under the embargo. In reality, the action would simply be taking U.S. policy back to the Clinton
Administration, before former President George W. Bush all but froze that kind of people-to-people contact with Cuba. But it's
less clear if
Obama intends his new regulations to be a signal of support for eliminating the entire travel ban —
which only Congress can do — or an unspoken message that this is as far as he wants to take the battle against the embargo's
dogged supporters on Capitol Hill.¶ The bill's bipartisan backers, not surprisingly, see it as the former. House staffers say the
White House Cuba regulations will be a shot in the arm for the broader travel legislation when Congress returns from its recess next month.
Embargo foes agree. "This is
the Administration essentially saying, 'We've done what we can, and now we
want Congress to take the larger step,'" says Jake Colvin, vice president for global trade issues at the independent National
Foreign Trade Council in Washington, D.C. "This bill still has a lot of hurdles, but this implicit White House support
gives it momentum again."¶ Echoing the optimism is Patrick Kilbride, senior director for the Americas at the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce. The organization represents a sizable bloc of farmers and businesspeople, many of them Republican-aligned, who want the Cuba
embargo scrapped so they can reap the $1 billion in annual sales to the island that a recent Texas A&M University study says they're losing out
on. "We think these new [travel] steps are a very positive signal that the [Administration] would like to move forward" to lift the full travel ban,
says Kilbride. He also confirms that the chamber is considering scoring the votes of Representatives and Senators if and when the bill finally hits
their floors.¶ The
House bill seems slowed at this point by more serious opposition from the chamber's
pro-embargo forces and especially the pro-embargo lobby, led by the US-Cuba Democracy PAC, a major
contributor to congressional campaigns. The Senate version, which deals only with the travel ban, has yet to get a
Foreign Relations Committee vote and most likely faces a filibuster from pro-embargo Senators if it can ever get to the
full chamber.¶ But another reason to be confident, says Colvin, is that "this is the best diplomatic environment we've seen in a long time" for
dismantling the embargo. That's because last month, Cuban President Raúl Castro, after a dissident hunger striker died earlier this year,
released 52 political prisoners who were locked up in 2003 by his elder brother, then President Fidel Castro (who ceded power to Raúl in 2006
due to ill health). Obama last year had left the ball in Havana's court when he reversed his predecessor's policy and let Cuban Americans travel
and send remittances more freely to Cuba. Raúl's prisoner release, say diplomats, now makes the next move Obama's, and many see his new
travel regulations as part of that. But it's doubtful the Castros will feel international pressure to reciprocate, with further democratic or
economic openings in Cuba, unless the travel ban that's been in place since 1963 is eradicated.¶ Proponents of doing just that insist there's
more consensus than ever in the U.S. to ditch the Cuba embargo and its travel ban, which, after almost 50 years, have utterly failed to dislodge
the Castro regime. Opening Cuba to Americans, they believe, will do more to stimulate democratization there than isolating it has. Even a
majority of Cuban Americans now agree.¶ Still, for all the good vibes the bill's backers feel from the White House right now, some note warily
that Obama has been loath to spend political capital in Cuba, or the rest of Latin America for that matter. Critics, for
example, point to his decision last year to stop applying pressure against coup leaders in Honduras, who'd ousted a leftist President, when
conservative Republicans in Congress objected.¶ Embargo
supporters, including Cuban-American Senator Robert Menendez of New
Jersey, a Democrat, are already blasting Obama's plans to relax Cuba travel. "This is not the time to ease the pressure on the Castro
regime," Menendez said this month, insisting it will only give the brothers "a much needed infusion of dollars that will only extend their reign of
oppression." As a result, says one congressional aide who asked not to be identified, when it comes time for the White House to give the bill
more full-throated support, "there's a fear they may just decide that the fight's not worth it."¶ But Democratic Congressman Howard
Berman of California, a co-sponsor of the bill, says tearing down the travel ban is about more than Cuban rights —
65
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
it's also about the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to travel freely abroad. "Letting U.S. citizens travel to Cuba is not a gift to
the Castros — it is in the interest of our own citizens," Berman said after the House committee vote this summer. "It's time to trust our own
people and restore their right to travel." It's the sort of argument
show how strongly he concurs when Congress returns next month.
Obama usually agrees with. But now he may need to
Will cost PC – even taking Cuba off of the list of state sponsors of terrorism would cost
PC, even though experts agree that Cuba poses no harm
Williams, foreign correspondent for LA Times, 5/3
(Carol J., 5/3/13, Los Angeles Times, “Political calculus keeps Cuba on U.S. list of terror
sponsors,” http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-cuba-us-terrorlist-20130502,0,2494970.story, accessed 6/2/913, IC)
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 Castrocame 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 RosLehtinen, 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
and Secretary of State John F. Kerry have
failed to make a priority of removing the impediment to better relations with Cuba.¶ “As much as I’d like to
sponsor on politicians “pandering for a certain political base.” He also said President Obama
see the Castro regime gone and an open and free Cuba, it takes away from the State Department’s credibility when they include countries on
the list that aren’t even close” to threatening Americans, Aramesh said.¶ Political considerations also factor into excluding countries from the
“state sponsor” list, he said, pointing to Pakistan as a prime example. Although Islamabad “very clearly supports terrorist and insurgent
organizations,” he said, the U.S. government has long refused to provoke its ally in the region with the official censure.¶ The decision to retain
Cuba on the list surprised some observers of the long-contentious relationship between Havana and Washington. Since Fidel Castro retired five
years ago and handed the reins of power to his younger brother, Raul, modest economic reforms have been tackled and the government has
revoked the practice of requiring Cubans to get “exit visas” before they could leave their country for foreign travel.¶ There was talk early in
Obama’s first term of easing the 51-year-old embargo, and Kerry, though still in the Senate then, wrote a commentary for the Tampa Bay
Tribune in 2009 in which he deemed the security threat from Cuba “a faint shadow.” He called then for freer travel between the two countries
and an end to the U.S. policy of isolating Cuba “that has manifestly failed for nearly 50 years.”¶ The political
clout of the Cuban
American community in South Florida and more recently Havana’s refusal to release Gross have kept any
warming between the Cold War adversaries at bay.¶ It’s a matter of political priorities and trade-offs, Aramesh said.
He noted that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton last year exercised her discretion to get the Iranian opposition group
Mujahedeen Khalq, or MEK, removed from the government’s list of designated terrorist organizations. That move was motivated by the hopes
of some in Congress that the group could be aided and encouraged to eventually challenge the Tehran regime.¶ “It’s
a question of how
much political cost you want to incur or how much political capital you want to spend,” Aramesh said.
“President Obama has decided not to reach out to Cuba, that he has more important foreign policy battles elsewhere.”
66
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Link – Public
Cuban Americans oppose the embargo- support for it has consistently gone down
since 1991, now over 50% oppose it
Aguila, professor at Florida International University, 2012
(Sissi, 2/10/2012, “Sentiment toward Cuba Embargo changing as community changes,”
Online: http://news.fiu.edu/2012/02/panther-voices-sentiment-toward-cuba-embargo-changing-ascommunity-changes/35827 FG)
This week marks 50 years of the United States embargo on all trade with Cuba. Since 1991, FIU has
polled South Florida Cuban-Americans to gauge sentiment toward the embargo. The poll shows support
for the policy eroding. As part of FIU News’ Panther Voices series, lead investigator and sociology
professor Guillermo Grenier shares the findings. If there was ever a consensus among Cuban-Americans
in Miami about the effectiveness and necessity of the embargo, it dissolved many decades ago. In
1991, Hugh Gladwin, director of FIU’s Institute for Public Opinion Research, and I began surveying the
Cuban-American community on their attitude toward the embargo as part of the FIU Cuba Poll, a
detailed survey designed to measure the political attitudes of the Cuban-American community in South
Florida. The community’s attitudes toward the embargo reflect the diversity of Cuban-Americans and
their vision of U.S.-Cuba relations. The first year we conducted the poll, approximately 87 percent of
Cuban-Americans in, then, Dade County favored the continuation of the embargo. In subsequent
years, that number has steadily decreased. The steepest decline occurred after 2000, bottoming out in
November of 2008 when fewer than 50 percent of our community supported the continuation of the
embargo. The latest poll – completed in Sept. of 2011 and funded by the Ford Foundation, the Cuban
Research Institute and the Department of Global and Sociocultural – showed an increase to
approximately 50 percent in support, well below its heyday. This, despite 80 percent believing that the
embargo has not worked very well or not well at all. The embargo remains a strong symbol of the
alliance between the “exile” community and the U.S. government. For 50 years, it has offered a vision,
born of the Cold War, of how to achieve “regime change” on the island. This (nerf) stick of power has
not dealt the death blow its crafters hoped. When Cuban-Americans are asked about specific
restrictions of the embargo, they show a willingness to introduce some new approaches into the policy
mix. Seventy-five percent support U.S. companies selling medicine to Cuba (up from 50 percent in
1993). Sixty-five percent favor selling food (up from 23 percent in 1993). Fifty-seven percent would like
to see all travel restrictions lifted to the island for ALL Americans (up from 44 percent in 1991). And
more than 60 percent are against any legal restrictions to the number of trips or amount of
remittances Cuban-American can send to relatives on the island. Attitudes in the community are
changing because the community itself is changing. Approximately 35 percent of Cuban-Americans living
in Miami-Dade arrived from Cuba after 1994. These are the members of our community who are more
likely to have personal as well as emotional links to the Cuba of today. Only 40 percent of these new
Cubans have become citizens, however, and of these, only 35 percent are registered to vote. We all have
an opinion on the embargo and other elements of U.S.-Cuba policy. But only citizens with a vote can
change policies. It is up to the new wave of Cubans to revamp the vision of how change can occur in
modern Cuba.
67
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Link – GOP
Plan causes Republican backlash – triggers the link
Cave, NY Times Correspondent based in Mexico City, 11/19
(Damien, November 19 2013, New York Times, “Easing of Restrictions in Cuba Renews Debate on U.S.
Embargo,” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/americas/changes-in-cuba-create-support-foreasing-embargo.html?pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print , Accessed 6/24/13. RJ)
HAVANA — “If I could just get a lift,” said Francisco López, imagining the addition of a hydraulic elevator as he stood by a rusted Russian sedan
in his mechanic’s workshop here. All he needed was an investment from his brother in Miami or from a Cuban friend there who already sneaks
in brake pads and other parts for him.¶ The problem: Washington’s 50-year-old trade embargo, which prohibits even the most basic business
dealings across the 90 miles separating Cuba from the United States. Indeed, every time Mr. López’s friend in Florida accepts payment for a car
part destined for Cuba, he puts himself at risk of a fine of up to $65,000.¶ With Cuba cautiously introducing free-market changes that have
legalized hundreds of thousands of small private businesses over the past two years, new economic bonds between Cuba and the United States
have formed, creating new challenges, new possibilities — and a more complicated debate over the embargo.¶ The longstanding logic has been
that broad sanctions are necessary to suffocate the totalitarian government of Fidel and Raúl Castro. Now, especially for many Cubans who had
previously stayed on the sidelines in the battle over Cuba policy, a new argument against the embargo is gaining currency — that the tentative
move toward capitalism by the Cuban government could be sped up with more assistance from Americans.¶ Even as defenders of the embargo
warn against providing the Cuban government with “economic lifelines,” some Cubans and exiles are advocating a fresh approach. The Obama
administration already showed an openness to engagement with Cuba in 2009 by removing restrictions on travel and remittances for Cuban
Americans. But with Fidel Castro, 86, retired and President Raúl Castro, 81, leading a bureaucracy that is divided on the pace and scope of
change, many have begun urging President Obama to go further and update American policy by putting a priority on assistance for Cubans
seeking more economic independence from the government.¶ “Maintaining this embargo, maintaining this hostility, all it does is strengthen
and embolden the hard-liners,” said Carlos Saladrigas, a Cuban exile and co-chairman of the Cuba Study Group in Washington, which advocates
engagement with Cuba. “What we should be doing is helping the reformers.”¶ Any easing would be a gamble. Free enterprise may not
necessarily lead to the embargo’s goal of free elections, especially because Cuba has said it wants to replicate the paths of Vietnam and China,
where the loosening of economic restrictions has not led to political change. Indeed, Cuban officials have become adept at using previous
American efforts to soften the embargo to their advantage, taking a cut of dollars converted into pesos and marking up the prices at stateowned stores.¶ And Cuba has a long history of tossing ice on warming relations. The latest example is the jailing of Alan Gross, a State
Department contractor who has spent nearly three years behind bars for distributing satellite telephone equipment to Jewish groups in
Havana.¶ In Washington, Mr. Gross is seen as the main impediment to an easing of the embargo, but there are also limits to what the president
could do without Congressional action. The 1992 Cuban Democracy Act conditioned the waiving of sanctions on the introduction of democratic
changes inside Cuba. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act also requires that the embargo remain until Cuba has a transitional or democratically elected
government. Obama administration officials say they have not given up, and could move if the president decides to act on his own. Officials say
that under the Treasury Department’s licensing and regulation-writing authority, there is room for significant modification. Following the legal
logic of Mr. Obama’s changes in 2009, further
expansions in travel are possible along with new allowances for investment or
imports and exports, especially if narrowly applied to Cuban businesses.¶ Even these adjustments — which could also include travel for
all Americans and looser rules for ships engaged in trade with Cuba, according to a legal analysis commissioned by the Cuba Study Group —
would probably mean a fierce political fight. The handful of Cuban-Americans in Congress for whom the
embargo is sacred oppose looser rules.¶ When asked about Cuban entrepreneurs who are seeking more American support,
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Florida Republican who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee,
proposed an even tighter embargo.¶ “The sanctions on the regime must remain in place and, in fact, should
be strengthened, and not be altered,” she wrote in an e-mail. “Responsible nations must not buy into the facade the dictatorship is
trying to create by announcing ‘reforms’ while, in reality, it’s tightening its grip on its people.”¶ Many Cubans agree that their government cares
more about control than economic growth. Business owners complain that inspectors pounce when they see signs of success and demand
receipts to prove that supplies were not stolen from the government, a common practice here. One restaurant owner in Havana said he
received a large fine for failing to produce a receipt for plastic wrap.¶ Cuban officials say the shortages fueling the black market are caused by
the embargo. But mostly they prefer to discuss the policy in familiar terms. They take reporter after reporter to hospitals of frail infants, where
American medical exports are allowed under a humanitarian exception. Few companies bother, however, largely because of a rule, unique to
Cuba, requiring that the American companies do on-site monitoring to make sure products are not used for weapons.¶ “The Treasury
Department is asking me, in a children’s hospital, if I use, for example, catheters for military uses — chemical, nuclear or biological,” said Dr.
Eugenio Selman, director of the William Soler Pediatric Cardiology Center.¶ As for the embargo’s restriction on investment, Cuban officials have
expressed feelings that are more mixed. At a meeting in New York in September with a group called Cuban Americans for Engagement, Cuba’s
foreign minister, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, said business investment was not a priority.¶ “Today the economic development of Cuba does not
demand investments of $100,000, $200,000, $300,000,” he said, according to the group’s account of the meeting. Rather, he called for
hundreds of millions of dollars to expand a local port.¶ Owners of Cuba’s small businesses, mostly one-person operations at this point, say they
know that the government would most likely find ways to profit from wider economic relations with the United States. The response to the
informal imports that come from Miami in the suitcases of relatives, for instance, has been higher customs duties.¶ Still, in a country where
Cubans “resolve” their way around government restrictions every day (private deals with customs agents are common), many Cubans
anticipate real benefits should the United States change course. Mr. López, a meticulous mechanic who wears plastic gloves to avoid dirtying
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
68
his fingers, said legalizing imports and investment would create a flood of the supplies that businesses needed, overwhelming the government’s
controls while lowering prices and creating more work apart from the state.¶ Other Cubans, including political dissidents, say softening the
embargo would increase the pressure for more rapid change by undermining one of the government’s main excuses for failing to provide
freedom, economic opportunity or just basic supplies.¶ “Last month, someone asked me to redo their kitchen, but I told them I couldn’t do it
because I didn’t have the materials,” said Pedro José, 49, a licensed carpenter in Havana who did not want his last name published to avoid
government pressure.¶ “Look around — Cuba is destroyed,” he added, waving a hand toward a colonial building blushing with circles of faded
pink paint from the 1950s. “There is a lot of work to be done.”
Lifting the Embargo will take a lot of time and effort - unpopular
Haven Associated Press bureau chief in Havana June 21
(Paul, “Cuba, US, haltingly move to thaw?”,
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130621/WIRE/130629941/2055/NEWS?p=1
&tc=pg , 6/24/13, AZ)
HAVANA - 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. President Raul Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and social changes, including making it
easier for Cubans to travel off the island.¶ Under the radar, diplomats on both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings.¶ Only
last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on Havana streets and
publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. Today, U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign Ministry officials have easy contact, even
sharing home phone numbers.¶ Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently traveled to Washington and met twice
with State Department officials — a visit that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that had
been suspended for more than two years. Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the daughter of Cuba's
president.¶ "These recent
steps indicate a desire on both sides to try to move forward, but also a
recognition on both sides of just how difficult it is to make real progress," said Robert Pastor, a professor of
international relations at American University and former national security adviser on Latin America during the Carter administration. "These
are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are equally high."¶ Among the things that
have changed, John Kerry has taken over as U.S. secretary of state after being an outspoken critic of Washington's policy on Cuba while in the
Senate. President Barack Obama no longer has re-election concerns while dealing with the Cuban-American electorate in Florida, where there
are also indications of a warming attitude to negotiating with Cuba.¶ Castro, meanwhile, is striving to overhaul the island's Marxist economy
with a dose of limited free-market capitalism and may feel a need for more open relations with the U.S. While direct American investment is
still barred on the island, a rise in visits and money transfers by Cuban-Americans since Obama relaxed restrictions has been a boon for Cuba's
cash-starved economy. Under the table, Cuban-Americans are also helping relatives on the island start private businesses and refurbish homes
bought under Castro's limited free-market reforms.¶ Several prominent Cuban dissidents have been allowed to travel recently due to Castro's
changes. The trips have been applauded by Washington, and also may have lessened Havana's worries about the threat posed by dissidents.
Likewise, a U.S. federal judge's decision to allow Cuban spy Rene Gonzalez to return home was met with only muted criticism inside the United
States, perhaps emboldening U.S. diplomats to seek further openings with Cuba.¶ To be sure,
there is still far more that
separates the long-time antagonists than unites them.¶ The State Department has kept Cuba on a list
of state sponsors of terrorism and another that calls into question Havana's commitment to fighting
human trafficking. The Obama administration continues to demand democratic change on an island
ruled for more than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel.¶ For its part, Cuba continues to
denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic embargo.¶ And then there is Gross, the 64-year-old
Maryland native who was arrested in 2009 and is serving a 15-year jail sentence for bringing
communications equipment to the island illegally. His case has scuttled efforts at engagement in the
past, and could do so again, U.S. officials say privately. Cuba has indicated it wants to trade Gross for four Cuban agents
serving long jail terms in the United States, something Washington has said it won't consider.¶ Ted Henken, a professor of Latin American
studies at Baruch College in New York who helped organize a recent U.S. tour by Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez, said the Obama
administration is too concerned with upsetting Cuban-American politicians and has missed opportunities to engage with Cuba at a crucial time
in its history.¶ "I think that a lot more would have to happen for this to amount to momentum leading to any kind of major diplomatic
breakthrough," he said. "Obama should be bolder and more audacious."¶ Even
these limited moves have sparked fierce
criticism by those long opposed to engagement. Cuban-American congressman Mario Diaz Balart, a
Florida Republican, called the recent overtures "disturbing." "Rather than attempting to legitimize the Cuban people's
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
69
oppressors, the administration should demand that the regime stop harboring fugitives from U.S. justice, release all political prisoners and
American humanitarian aid worker Alan Gross, end the brutal, escalating repression against the Cuban people, and respect basic human rights,"
he said.¶
Another Cuban-American politician from Florida, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, scolded Obama for
seeking "dialogue with the dictatorship."¶ Despite that rhetoric, many experts think Obama would face less political fallout at
home if he chose engagement because younger Cuban-Americans seem more open to improved ties than those who fled immediately after the
1959 revolution.¶ Of 10 Cuban-Americans interview by The Associated Press on Thursday at the popular Miami restaurant Versailles, a de facto
headquarters of the exile community, only two said they were opposed to the U.S. holding migration talks. Several said they hoped for much
more movement.¶ Jose Gonzalez, 55, a shipping industry supervisor who was born in Cuba and came to the U.S. at age 12, said he now favors
an end to the embargo and the resumption of formal diplomatic ties. "There was a reason that existed but it doesn't anymore," he said.¶
Santiago Portal, a 65-year-old engineer who moved to the U.S. 45 years ago, said more dialogue would be good. "The more exchange of all
types the closer Cuba will be to democracy," he said.¶ Those opinions dovetail with a 2011 poll by Florida International University of 648
randomly selected Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade County that said 58 percent favored re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. That
was a considerable increase from a survey in 1993, when 80 percent of people polled said they did not support trade or diplomatic relations
with Cuba.¶ "In general, there is an open attitude, certainly toward re-establishing diplomatic relations," said Jorge Duany, director of the
Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University. "Short of perhaps lifting the embargo ... there seems to be increasing support for
some sort of understanding with the Cuban government."¶
70
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Link – Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan Decries the Embargo
Oppel, writer for the New York Times, ‘12
(Richard A, 9/22/12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/us/politics/ryancriticizes-obamas-cuba-policy-and-explains-his-shift-on-theissue.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
If we think engagement works well with China, well, it ought to work well with Cuba,” Mr. Ryan had
said a decade ago in an interview with The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “The embargo doesn’t work. It
is a failed policy,” he said, adding that while many Cuban-Americans were passionate in their support of
the embargo, “I just don’t agree with them and never have.”
Ryan is essential to the GOP—Logistics prove
Lizza, Washington correspondent to the New Yorker, ‘12
(Ryan, 8/6/12,
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza, accessed
6/30/13, ARH)
Sitting in his office more than three years ago, Ryan could not have foreseen how successful his
crusade to reinvent the Republican Party would be. Nearly every important conservative opinionmaker and think tank has rallied around his policies. Nearly every Republican in the House and the
Senate has voted in favor of some version of his budget plan. Earlier this year, the G.O.P. Presidential
candidates lavished praise on Ryan and his ideas. “I’m very supportive of the Ryan budget plan,” Mitt
Romney said on March 20th, in Chicago. The following week, while campaigning in Wisconsin, he added,
“I think it’d be marvellous if the Senate were to pick up Paul Ryan’s budget and adopt it and pass it along
to the President.”
Paul Ryan has GOP influence
Weisman, NY Times Columnist, ’12
(Jonathan, 4/29/12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/us/politics/paul-ryanskinetic-rise-in-gop.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
He may be, as a friend described him, “a hunting-obsessed gym rat,” but Mr. Ryan, 42, of Wisconsin, has
become perhaps the most influential policy maker in the Republican Party, its de facto head of
economic policy, intent on a fundamental transformation of the federal government. His prescriptions
in the Republican budget plan he devised have become his party’s marching orders: cut income tax
rates and simplify the code, privatize Medicare, shrink the food-stamp and Medicaid programs and turn
almost all control over to the states, and reduce domestic federal spending to its smallest share of the
economy since World War II. Outside of Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, Mr.
Ryan may be the party’s most important figure, said William Bennett, the conservative luminary and a
mentor of Mr. Ryan’s going back to the congressman’s early 20s. Some conservatives say Mr. Bennett
might have the reality reversed. “Paul Ryan effectively captured the Republican presidential
candidates,” Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a member of the House Republican leadership, said
admiringly. Having gained such influence, Mr. Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, now
faces some big questions, about his ideas and his future.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
71
Congressional Backlash causes Political Gridlock
Pew Research Center, Renowned international research center, 5/8/13
(People-Press, 5/8/13, http://www.people-press.org/2013/05/08/obama-maintainsapproval-advantage-but-gop-runs-even-on-key-issues/, accessed 6/30/13, ARH)
The percentage saying that Obama and Republican leaders are not working together has risen steadily
during Obama’s presidency. Currently, 80% say the two sides are not working together, up from 65%
in February 2011 (shortly after Republicans won control of the House) and just 45% in early 2009. By
nearly two-to-one, those who see a lack of cooperation are more likely to blame Republican leaders in
Congress (42%) than Obama (22%) for the gridlock. The percentage blaming Republicans is up 11 points
since February 2011, while the percentage blaming Obama is little changed over that time period.
Republicans and Democrats are about equally likely to say that GOP leaders and Obama are not
cooperating, but Republicans are more likely to say their own party is at least partly to blame for
gridlock than are Democrats.
72
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Link - Democrats
Lifting the embargo loses Robert Menendez’s vote – a key democrat
Sweig David Rockefeller senior fellow for Latin America studies and director for Latin America studies
at the Council on Foreign Relations 12
(Julia, “Getting Latin America Right”, http://nationalinterest.org/article/getting-latin-america-right78802, Accessed 6/30/13, AZ)
SUCH FORWARD momentum on regional affairs came to a halt on June 28, 2009, when the Honduran
military raided the home of then president Manuel Zelaya and put him on a plane to Costa Rica, still in
his pajamas. Obama and Secretary Clinton initially condemned the coup and defended the legitimacy of
Zelaya’s presidency. In so doing, they aligned themselves with politically disparate regional voices such
as Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Mexico—and consciously distanced themselves from the legacy of George
W. Bush’s controversial endorsement of a failed 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela.¶ But within weeks the
mood changed as the organizers of Zelaya’s ouster and their lawyers pushed hard in the U.S. Congress
and the media to promote an alternative narrative. Zelaya, they argued, had provoked his own demise
by pushing for a referendum that, though nonbinding, might create the political conditions for him to
alter the country’s constitution and seek reelection. The dispute exacerbated a profound polarization in
Honduras between status quo forces (represented by the military, the Congress and the Supreme Court)
and the base of often poor, poorly organized voters, who saw Zelaya’s ouster as a potentially
destabilizing step backward for Honduran society.¶ Obama’s initial instinct was to side with the
consensus in the region to restore Zelaya to power. But American conservatives in Congress who had
vowed to make Obama a one-term president would have none of that. Eager to pin the scarlet letter
of national-security weakness on the new Democratic administration, they argued that Zelaya
deserved his fate, given his affinity with Hugo Chávez in particular. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a
Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, championed the Hondurans who
organized the coup and quickly found two allies on the committee bent on stopping Obama from
moving further on Cuba: newly elected Florida Republican Marco Rubio and New Jersey Democrat
Robert Menendez. The latter was well-known for long-standing warnings to fellow Democrats in
Congress and the White House that a more liberal policy toward Cuba would cost his support—
whether campaign finance from his donors or his votes on major appropriations bills. Combining
forces, DeMint, Rubio and Menendez held up confirmation of the administration’s nominees for
assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs and ambassador to Brazil.
73
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
AT: Winners Win
Obama will be forced to spend political capital – only presidential support can give it the
momentum for it to pass
Padgett, Miami and Latin America Bureau Chief at Time, 10
(Tim, 8/23/10, “Will the White House Fight to End the Cuba Travel Ban?”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2013820,00.html, acessed 6/29/13, IC)
After it looked a couple of months ago as if a bill lifting the ban on U.S. travel to Cuba had the momentum to pass Congress, it
now appears stalled in the House of Representatives. The bill, which would also make food sales to Cuba easier, cleared the House
Agriculture Committee but still needs a vote in two other committees — Financial Services and Foreign Affairs — and it may not even come up
for a full vote this year. So as reports surface that the
Obama Administration plans on its own to expand legal travel
opportunities to Cuba, the question is whether such a move will spur or spoil the House bill — whose passage
would mark the biggest shift in U.S. Cuba policy since a trade embargo was issued against the communist island in 1962.¶ President Obama,
according to Administration and congressional sources, intends before the year is out to loosen restrictions on visits to Cuba by U.S. students,
entertainers and other goodwill ambassadors. Backers of increased American engagement with Cuba applaud the proposal, which is part of the
President's executive prerogative under the embargo. In reality, the action would simply be taking U.S. policy back to the Clinton
Administration, before former President George W. Bush all but froze that kind of people-to-people contact with Cuba. But it's
less clear if
Obama intends his new regulations to be a signal of support for eliminating the entire travel ban —
which only Congress can do — or an unspoken message that this is as far as he wants to take the battle against the embargo's
dogged supporters on Capitol Hill.¶ The bill's bipartisan backers, not surprisingly, see it as the former. House staffers say the
White House Cuba regulations will be a shot in the arm for the broader travel legislation when Congress returns from its recess next month.
Embargo foes agree. "This
is the Administration essentially saying, 'We've done what we can, and now we
want Congress to take the larger step,'" says Jake Colvin, vice president for global trade issues at the independent National
Foreign Trade Council in Washington, D.C. "This bill still has a lot of hurdles, but this implicit White House support
gives it momentum again."¶ Echoing the optimism is Patrick Kilbride, senior director for the Americas at the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce. The organization represents a sizable bloc of farmers and businesspeople, many of them Republican-aligned, who want the Cuba
embargo scrapped so they can reap the $1 billion in annual sales to the island that a recent Texas A&M University study says they're losing out
on. "We think these new [travel] steps are a very positive signal that the [Administration] would like to move forward" to lift the full travel ban,
says Kilbride. He also confirms that the chamber is considering scoring the votes of Representatives and Senators if and when the bill finally hits
their floors.¶ The
House bill seems slowed at this point by more serious opposition from the chamber's proembargo forces and especially the pro-embargo lobby, led by the US-Cuba Democracy PAC, a major contributor
to congressional campaigns. The Senate version, which deals only with the travel ban, has yet to get a Foreign Relations
Committee vote and most likely faces a filibuster from pro-embargo Senators if it can ever get to the full chamber.¶ But
another reason to be confident, says Colvin, is that "this is the best diplomatic environment we've seen in a long time" for dismantling the
embargo. That's because last month, Cuban President Raúl Castro, after a dissident hunger striker died earlier this year, released 52 political
prisoners who were locked up in 2003 by his elder brother, then President Fidel Castro (who ceded power to Raúl in 2006 due to ill health).
Obama last year had left the ball in Havana's court when he reversed his predecessor's policy and let Cuban Americans travel and send
remittances more freely to Cuba. Raúl's prisoner release, say diplomats, now makes the next move Obama's, and many see his new travel
regulations as part of that. But it's doubtful the Castros will feel international pressure to reciprocate, with further democratic or economic
openings in Cuba, unless the travel ban that's been in place since 1963 is eradicated.¶ Proponents of doing just that insist there's more
consensus than ever in the U.S. to ditch the Cuba embargo and its travel ban, which, after almost 50 years, have utterly failed to dislodge the
Castro regime. Opening Cuba to Americans, they believe, will do more to stimulate democratization there than isolating it has. Even a majority
of Cuban Americans now agree.¶ Still, for all the good vibes the bill's backers feel from the White House right now, some note warily that
Obama has been loath to spend political capital in Cuba, or the rest of Latin America for that matter. Critics, for example,
point to his decision last year to stop applying pressure against coup leaders in Honduras, who'd ousted a leftist President, when conservative
Republicans in Congress objected.¶ Embargo
supporters, including Cuban-American Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a
Democrat, are already blasting Obama's plans to relax Cuba travel. "This is not the time to ease the pressure on the Castro regime,"
Menendez said this month, insisting it will only give the brothers "a much needed infusion of dollars that will only extend their reign of
oppression." As a result, says one congressional aide who asked not to be identified, when it comes time for the White House to give the bill
more full-throated support, "there's a fear they may just decide that the fight's not worth it."¶ But Democratic Congressman Howard
Berman of California, a co-sponsor of the bill, says tearing down the travel ban is about more than Cuban rights —
it's also about the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to travel freely abroad. "Letting U.S. citizens travel to Cuba is not a gift to
the Castros — it is in the interest of our own citizens," Berman said after the House committee vote this summer. "It's time to trust our own
74
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
people and restore their right to travel." It's the sort of argument Obama usually
how strongly he concurs when Congress returns next month.
agrees with. But now he may need to show
Will cost PC – even taking Cuba off of the list of state sponsors of terrorism would cost PC,
even though experts agree that Cuba poses no harm
Williams, foreign correspondent for LA Times, 5/3
(Carol J., 5/3/13, Los Angeles Times, “Political calculus keeps Cuba on U.S. list of terror sponsors,”
http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-cuba-us-terror-list20130502,0,2494970.story, accessed 6/2/913, IC)
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 Castrocame 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 RosLehtinen, 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
and Secretary of State John F. Kerry have
failed to make a priority of removing the impediment to better relations with Cuba.¶ “As much as I’d like to see
sponsor on politicians “pandering for a certain political base.” He also said President Obama
the Castro regime gone and an open and free Cuba, it takes away from the State Department’s credibility when they include countries on the
list that aren’t even close” to threatening Americans, Aramesh said.¶ Political considerations also factor into excluding countries from the “state
sponsor” list, he said, pointing to Pakistan as a prime example. Although Islamabad “very clearly supports terrorist and insurgent
organizations,” he said, the U.S. government has long refused to provoke its ally in the region with the official censure.¶ The decision to retain
Cuba on the list surprised some observers of the long-contentious relationship between Havana and Washington. Since Fidel Castro retired five
years ago and handed the reins of power to his younger brother, Raul, modest economic reforms have been tackled and the government has
revoked the practice of requiring Cubans to get “exit visas” before they could leave their country for foreign travel.¶ There was talk early in
Obama’s first term of easing the 51-year-old embargo, and Kerry, though still in the Senate then, wrote a commentary for the Tampa Bay
Tribune in 2009 in which he deemed the security threat from Cuba “a faint shadow.” He called then for freer travel between the two countries
and an end to the U.S. policy of isolating Cuba “that has manifestly failed for nearly 50 years.”¶ The political clout
of the Cuban
American community in South Florida and more recently Havana’s refusal to release Gross have kept any
warming between the Cold War adversaries at bay.¶ It’s a matter of political priorities and trade-offs, Aramesh said. He
noted that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton last year exercised her discretion to get the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen
Khalq, or MEK, removed from the government’s list of designated terrorist organizations. That move was motivated by the hopes of some in
Congress that the group could be aided and encouraged to eventually challenge the Tehran regime.¶ “It’s
a question of how much
political cost you want to incur or how much political capital you want to spend,” Aramesh said. “President
Obama has decided not to reach out to Cuba, that he has more important foreign policy battles elsewhere.”
75
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
AT: No Blame
Obama is always the Political Scapegoat and Recieves the blame
Gazette-Times, Respected and Well-known Newspaper, 6/6/13
(Corvallis, 6/6/13, http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letterobama-is-the-go-to-scapegoat-for-just-about/article_e5690256-ce6e-11e2-813f001a4bcf887a.html, ARH)
When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And apparently if you hate President Obama,
everything looks like a conspiracy. John Brenan blames the sequester and dire consequences on
Obama. The sequester was used as a way to force Congress to do its job — agree on a budget. The
New Yorker magazine reports that Obama and (House Speaker John) Boehner had come to a “grand
bargain” that included spending cuts and tax revenues. But House Tea Party members balked, and
House Whip Eric Cantor abandoned his promised vote to Boehner. No grand bargain. So who is
responsible for the sequester? House Republicans. Mr. Brenan wrote there is no chorus for
impeachment. Search “Impeach Obama,” and you’ll find the names of the politicians as well as petitions
to sign. Don’t tell an unemployed or underemployed person or college grads the recession is over.
Jonathan Hayes writes that Obama is responsible for the IRS scandal; that if he didn’t know he is
incompetent, and if he did know he’s a liar (Letters, May 29, “Anyway you look at it, Obama is to blame
for IRS scandal”). So as president, Obama is responsible for running all government functions? Bad
drugs released that kill people? Blame Obama. Bridges collapse? Blame Obama. Unrest in the Middle
East? Blame Obama. Your plane is late? Blame Obama. Toilet doesn’t work at a national park? Blame
Obama.
76
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Castro DA**
77
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
1NC
Lifting the embargo boosts Castro’s power- the government controls the businesses that would be
profiting
Rubin, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, 2012
(Michael, 11/27/12, “The Mockery of Cuban Sanctions Exceptions,” Online:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/11/27/the-mockery-of-cuba-sanctions-exceptions/ FG)
Now, the wisdom of Cuba sanctions is another issue. I support the sanctions, and will push back on
those who wish to dismantle them simply because they see them as a relic from the past. The major
problem with lifting the sanctions at this point is that the main beneficiaries of tourist dollars will not be
the Cuban people, but rather the government which owns and operates most of the tourist facilities at
which most high-end tourists will stay. Indeed, from what I understand from Cuba watchers, it is not
simply the government which is invested most deeply in these facilities but the Cuban military and Raul
Castro himself. The idea of pumping money into an aging and decrepit dictatorship risks snatching
defeat from the jaws of victory.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
78
Link – Boosts Regime
Lifting the embargo boosts Castro’s power- the embargo is an appropriate punishment for the
oppression of their people
Brookes, Senior fellow for National Security Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, 2009
(Peter, 4/16/2009, “Keep the Embargo, O,” Online:
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2009/04/keep-the-embargo-o FG)
In another outreach to roguish regimes, the Obama administration on Monday announced the easing of
some restrictions on Cuba. Team Bam hopes that a new face in the White House will heal old wounds.
Fat chance. Sure, it's fine to allow separated families to see each other more than once every three years
-- even though Cubanos aren't allowed to visit America. And permitting gifts to Cuban relatives could
ease unnecessary poverty -- even though the regime will siphon off an estimated 20 percent of the
money sent there. In the end, though, it's still Fidel Castro and his brother Raul who'll decide whether
there'll be a thaw in ties with the United States -- or not. And in usual Castro-style, Fidel himself stood
defiant in response to the White House proclamation, barely recognizing the US policy shift. Instead, and
predictably, Fidel demanded an end to el bloqueo (the blockade) -- without any promises of change for
the people who labor under the regime's hard-line policies. So much for the theory that if we're nice to
them, they'll be nice to us. Many are concerned that the lack of love from Havana will lead Washington
to make even more unilateral concessions to create an opening with Fidel and the gang. Of course, the
big empanada is the US economic embargo against Cuba, in place since 1962, which undoubtedly is the
thing Havana most wants done away with -- without any concessions on Cuba's part, of course. Lifting
the embargo won't normalize relations, but instead legitimize -- and wave the white flag to -- Fidel's 50year fight against the Yanquis, further lionizing the dictator and encouraging the Latin American Left.
Because the economy is nationalized, trade will pour plenty of cash into the Cuban national coffers -allowing Havana to suppress dissent at home and bolster its communist agenda abroad. The last thing
we should do is to fill the pockets of a regime that'll use those profits to keep a jackboot on the neck of
the Cuban people. The political and human-rights situation in Cuba is grim enough already. The police
state controls the lives of 11 million Cubans in what has become an island prison. The people enjoy none
of the basic civil liberties -- no freedom of speech, press, assembly or association. Security types monitor
foreign journalists, restrict Internet access and foreign news and censor the domestic media. The regime
holds more than 200 political dissidents in jails that rats won't live in. We also don't need a pumped-up
Cuba that could become a serious menace to US interests in Latin America, the Caribbean -- or beyond.
(The likes of China, Russia and Iran might also look to partner with a revitalized Cuba.) With an influx of
resources, the Cuban regime would surely team up with the rulers of nations like Venezuela, Nicaragua
and Bolivia to advance socialism and anti-Americanism in the Western Hemisphere. The embargo has
stifled Havana's ambitions ever since the Castros lost their Soviet sponsorship in the early 1990s. Anyone
noticed the lack of trouble Cuba has caused internationally since then? Contrast that with the 1980s
some time. Regrettably, 110 years after independence from Spain (courtesy of Uncle Sam), Cuba still
isn't free. Instead of utopia, it has become a dystopia at the hands of the Castro brothers. The US
embargo remains a matter of principle -- and an appropriate response to Cuba's brutal repression of its
people. Giving in to evil only begets more of it. Haven't we learned that yet? Until we see progress in
loosing the Cuban people from the yoke of the communist regime, we should hold firm onto the
leverage the embargo provides.
Castro wants the embargo lifted- it will only serve to boost the struggling regime
Sweeny, Policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, 1994
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
79
(John, 11/10/1994, “Why the Cuban Trade Embargo Should be Maintained,” Online:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1994/11/bg1010nbsp-why-the-cuban-trade FG)
While the embargo may finally be working, Castro remains defiant. He refuses to allow true free-market
reforms and rejects democratic political reforms. Instead, he is conducting an aggressive international
campaign to get the embargo lifted without making any economic or political concessions in return.
Castro is trying to force the United States to lift the embargo in order to resuscitate his dying communist
regime with billions of dollars in trade, investment, and international aid. Although the United States
today stands virtually alone in its insistence on maintaining the embargo, it must stand firm. Thus far,
the Clinton Administration has resisted pressure to lift the embargo. To hasten the transition to a postCastro Cuba, the Administration should: Maintain the embargo until irreversible economic and political
reforms leading to democratic capitalism take place.
Lifting the embargo would only boost the regime- 90% of money flow in Cuba is
controlled by the government
Walser, PhD and Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, 2009
(Ray, 5/28/2009, “No Progress? No Relief,” Online:
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2009/05/no-progress-no-relief FG)
No president would feel comfortable taking steps that would help fill the coffers of Castro Brothers Inc.
Cuba's regressive government controls 90 percent of all economic activity. The cupola of the communist
regime, not the people or the market, calls every shot and reaps the lion's share of benefits.The 1962
embargo has been substantially modified over time. The United States now sells hundreds of millions of
dollars' worth of food on a cash-and-carry basis. Remittances from the United States add hundreds of
millions more and are certain to grow. Lifting of restrictions on telecommunications will allow freer
communications, if the Cubans so desire. Two million foreign tourists bask annually in Cuba's sun while
the majority of Cubans subsist on less than $20 a month. More than $1 billion in U.S. trade and
remittances has thus far bought a goose egg's worth of liberalization and human-rights changes. Would
additional billions accomplish any more without a profound structural, democratic transition in Cuba?
Lifting the embargo boosts the regime- Castro gains more power and continues to threaten
democracy
Sweeny, Policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, 1994
(John, 11/10/1994, “Why the Cuban Trade Embargo Should be Maintained,” Online:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1994/11/bg1010nbsp-why-the-cuban-trade FG)
Castro's recent comments and actions make it clear how fruitless it would be for the United States to
make concessions now. Even without access to U.S. markets and investments, there are many steps
Castro could take to improve economic and political conditions within his country, but he refuses to do
so. These include: Adopting free-market policies that include a reform of Cuba's constitution and
passage of laws to abolish all legal prohibition of private enterprise and property ownership. Holding
democratic elections in the context of a politically pluralist society in which the Communist Party is
compelled to compete with democratic organizations and political parties. Freeing all political prisoners
currently in Cuban jails. Disbanding the Interior Ministry's security police and the Committees for the
Defense of the Revolution, which function as thought-control police and as spies in every neighborhood
in Cuba. Eliminating the Marxist political indoctrination, which is a central feature of Cuba's education
system. Restoring all confiscated assets and properties to their rightful owners, or agreeing to pay
appropriate compensation for what the regime has stolen from them. Without these steps, lifting the
embargo would only assure Castro's continuing repression of the Cuban people. Those who advocate
doing so are violating their own professed commitment to hemispheric democracy and the individual's
right to self-determination. Castro is a ruthless, charismatic dictator and is a potential danger to all
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
80
democratic, freedom-loving nations. He is an anachronism, but a dangerous one. The embargo,
however, is not an anachronism; it is a legitimate instrument for achieving the goal of a free and
democratic Cuba.
Lifting the embargo boosts the Castro regime- it increases the flow of cash into Cuba, and that money
goes straight into the government’s hands
Sweeny, Policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, 1994
(John, 11/10/1994, “Why the Cuban Trade Embargo Should be Maintained,” Online:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1994/11/bg1010nbsp-why-the-cuban-trade FG)
The 32-year-old trade embargo against Cuba may finally be producing its intended results of
destabilizing the island's communist government and weakening Fidel Castro's control of the Cuban
people. Castro has resisted change for over five years since losing the Soviet Union's financial support,
but his final collapse may be closer than ever before. Nevertheless, he continues his visceral loathing of
democracy and the free market, all the while demanding the embargo be lifted without condition. It
seems clear that Castro believes his survival hinges on the embargo's elimination. Paradoxically, just as
Castro's communist government may be close to falling, a chorus of voices in the U.S. has risen to call for
the lifting of the embargo. They cite several reasons: to ease the suffering of the Cuban people, to
capitalize on the trade and investment opportunities other countries allegedly are enjoying in Cuba, and
to establish the bases of a free-market economy that in time will compel democratic reforms as well.
But the greatest beneficiary would be Fidel Castro, whose 35-year-old communist dictatorship would be
fortified overnight if he were allowed access to the billions of dollars in financial aid from multilateral
agencies, credit guarantees, and investment that would start flowing into Cuba. The United States must
not abandon the Cuban people by relaxing or lifting the trade embargo against the communist regime.
Instead, the U.S. government must reject all pressures to ease the embargo until all of the objectives for
which it was imposed are achieved. Anything less would constitute an unacceptable breach of faith with
the Cuban people, who today are among the very few people left in the world who still suffer the
brutality of a communist dictatorship.
Lifting the embargo strengthens Castro regime and political repression
Brookes, Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, 09,
(Peter, 4/16/2009, The Heritage Foundation, “Keep the Embargo, O”, http://www
.heritage.org/research/commentary/2009/04/keep-the-embargo-o, 6/28/2013)
In the end, though, it's still Fidel Castro and his brother Raul who'll decide whether there'll be a thaw in
ties with the United States -- or not.¶ And in usual Castro-style, Fidel himself stood defiant in response
to the White House proclamation, barely recognizing the US policy shift.¶ Instead, and predictably, Fidel
demanded an end to el bloqueo (the blockade) -- without any promises of change for the people who
labor under the regime's hard-line policies.¶ So much for the theory that if we're nice to them, they'll be
nice to us.¶ Many are concerned that the lack of love from Havana will lead Washington to make even
more unilateral concessions to create an opening with Fidel and the gang.¶ Of course, the big
empanada is the US economic embargo against Cuba, in place since 1962, which undoubtedly is the
thing Havana most wants done away with -- without any concessions on Cuba's part, of course.¶ Lifting
the embargo won't normalize relations, but instead legitimize -- and wave the white flag to -- Fidel's
50-year fight against the Yanquis, further lionizing the dictator and encouraging the Latin American
Left.¶ Because the economy is nationalized, trade will pour plenty of cash into the Cuban national
coffers -- allowing Havana to suppress dissent at home and bolster its communist agenda abroad.¶
The last thing we should do is to fill the pockets of a regime that'll use those profits to keep a jackboot
on the neck of the Cuban people. The political and human-rights situation in Cuba is grim enough
already. The police state controls the lives of 11 million Cubans in what has become an island prison. The
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
81
people enjoy none of the basic civil liberties -- no freedom of speech, press, assembly or association.¶
Security types monitor foreign journalists, restrict Internet access and foreign news and censor the
domestic media. The regime holds more than 200 political dissidents in jails that rats won't live in.¶ We
also don't need a pumped-up Cuba that could become a serious menace to US interests in Latin
America, the Caribbean -- or beyond. (The likes of China, Russia and Iran might also look to partner with
a revitalized Cuba.)
Removing the embargo allows the government to revert to a Stalin-like system –
Empirics prove
Montaner, former professer and staff writer for the Miami Herald, 03
(Carlos Alberto, CubaNet, 10-2-03,
http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y03/oct03/02e5.htm, 6/30/13, ND)
Now he comes to Miami to advocate a cause dear to Fidel Castro. But Castro's objectives are only two: an end to travel restrictions, so he can
count on a couple of million tourists every year; and access to soft credits, so he can buy U.S. goods.¶ Will these groups achieve a change in
Washington's policy? Realistically, that will be difficult. The
arguments in favor of lifting the embargo are not as
weighty as those that counsel retaining it.¶ Why alleviate the Cuban government's economic situation when history has
shown that every time Castro strengthens his power, he invests those resources to retract the few
morsels of economic freedom granted to the people during the periods of deep crisis?¶ Thanks to crisis, the
armed forces were reduced in half. Thanks to crisis, the regime was forced to allow farmers markets and
dollar remittances from abroad. Thanks to crisis, Castro had to accept certain labor activities involving selfemployment and the creation of family-run restaurants and hostels. But, as is now evident, as the government managed to
overcome its worst moments, it began to regress into the most orthodox Stalinism.
The embargo is not the root cause of Cuban problems and removing it would allow the
Castro regime to strengthen its totalitarian regime
Azel, Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami, 08
(Jose, BusinessWeek, 2-28-08,
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2008/02/cube_snuff_out.html,
6/30/13, ND)
The effectiveness of using economic sanctions for political influence is an often debated aspect of U.S. foreign policy. The practice, however, is
not new or particularly American. Pericles’ decree banning the Megarians from the Athenian market and ports helped incite the Great
Peloponnesian War in 431 B.C.¶ In the case of Cuba in 2008, after nearly five decades of economic sanctions, the debate continues. Critics
of
the U.S. embargo note that economic sanctions have failed to change the nature of the Cuban
government and have allowed the country to use the embargo for propaganda purposes. Abandoning U.S. trade restrictions, they argue,
would expose Cuba to the “American way of life” and help foment social pressures for economic reforms and political liberalization.¶
Regrettably, this outlook stems from a U.S.-centric vantage point extrapolated to the Cuban
government. Embargo opponents make the flawed assumption that the current Cuban government is
earnestly interested in close relations with its northern neighbor—and willing to jeopardize its total control and 50year legacy of opposition to Yankee imperialism in exchange for an improvement in the economic well-being of Cubans. Raul Castro’s
recent speech to Cuba’s National Assembly should put an end to that notion.¶ The embargo is not the
cause of the catastrophic state of Cuba’s economy. Mismanagement and the fact that “command
economy” models don’t work lie at the root of Cuba’s economic misery. Despite the existence of the embargo,
the U.S. is Cuba’s sixth-largest trading partner and biggest food supplier.¶ Moreover, U.S. tourism will
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
82
not bring democracy to Cuba. For years, hundreds of thousands of tourists from Canada, Europe, Latin
America, and elsewhere have visited the island. Cuba is no more democratic today. On what mystical grounds
do opponents of the embargo offer that American tourists will do the trick?¶ There are many negative unintended
consequences to unilaterally lifting the embargo without meaningful changes in Cuba’s political and
economic model. Most important of all, it would ensure the continuation of the current totalitarian
regime by strengthening state enterprises that would be the main beneficiaries of currency inflows
into business owned by the Cuban government.
83
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Impact—Freedom
Cubans have very little freedom- the regime treats anyone who says something the
state doesn’t agree with awfully
Casey, Writer at Dissent Political journal, 2011
(Leo, Winter 2011, “Still the ‘Ashes of the Old’: Human and Labor Rights in Castro’s Cuba.” Dissent
political quarterly, Volume 58, pg 23-26 FG)
Today, almost all political dissent in Cuba is criminalized through a series of repressive laws. New Castro,
Same Cuba documented more than forty recent cases of Cubans imprisoned under Raúl Castro for
violations of a single law prohibiting a “state of dangerousness,” purportedly defined by anti-social
activities; in practice, Cubans have been found to be in such a state and imprisoned for handing out
copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, staging peaceful marches, writing news articles
critical of the government, and attempting to organize independent unions. Unemployment is sufficient
grounds to be found in a “state of dangerousness” by the Castro regime—a remarkably Orwellian form
of double jeopardy, given that firings and blacklisting are commonly used against dissenters. In a June
2010 report, Restrictions on Freedom of Expression in Cuba, Amnesty International found that in Raúl’s
Cuba the state abridgement of fundamental freedom of speech and expression remain “systematic and
entrenched.” Cubans can be imprisoned for “insulting” national symbols, “defaming” national
institutions and heroes, and belonging to “unauthorized” associations and attending “illicit” meetings
and demonstrations. The expression of views “contrary to the decision of the Cuban people to build
socialism and communism” is forbidden by the Cuban Constitution, leading to prosecutions on charges
of enemy propaganda, contempt of authority, rebellion, acts against state security, clandestine printing,
and distribution of false news. Journalists are compelled to belong to an association controlled by the
Cuban Communist Party in order to practice their craft in published media, which are all under the
control of a state monopoly. Arrested Cuban dissidents are regularly denied even a semblance of due
process of law, and the conditions of political prisoners can only be described as cruel and inhumane:
overcrowded, unhygienic, and unhealthy, leading to extensive malnutrition and illness. When prisoners
resist “political re-education” or engage in hunger strikes, they are routinely subjected to extended
solitary confinement, beatings, restrictions of visits, and the denial of medical care, New Castro, Same
Cuba reports. Cuban dissidents who try to express views independent of or critical of the Castro regime
are “often beaten, arbitrarily arrested, and subjected to public acts of repudiation,” Human Rights
Watch found. “The government monitors, intimidates, and threatens those it perceives as its enemies.”
Amnesty International reaches a virtually identical conclusion: harassment, intimidation, arbitrary
detention and imprisonment of critics of the government remain commonplace in Cuba. In Castro’s
Cuba, the experiences of the men and women of the Colegio are not the exception, but the rule.
Cubans are oppressed under Castro- they aren’t allowed to disagree with the state
Human Rights Watch, 2009
(11/19/2009, “New Castro, Same Cuba,” Online: http://www.hrw.org/node/86549/section/9 FG)
Daily acts of repression punish dissenters and their families in every aspect of their lives. The
government uses short-term detentions to reprimand dissidents for exercising their fundamental
freedoms and prevent them from participating in “counterrevolutionary” activities such as unofficial
meetings. Dissidents are verbally assaulted, harassed, and beaten by security officers and groups of
civilians tied to the state, while organized public “acts of repudiation” target their homes, subjecting
them and their families to humiliation and even mob attacks. Government officials repeatedly threaten
dissidents with imprisonment if they do not abandon their activities. They are fired from jobs, denied
work, and fined, placing a significant financial strain on their families. The government also routinely
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
84
prohibits its critics from exercising their right to travel within and outside of the island. Finally, dissidents
are subjected to constant and invasive surveillance, the information from which is often subsequently
used against them in sham trials.
Cubans have no freedom- they are arrested for disagreeing with the regime
Human Rights Watch, 2009
(11/19/2009, “New Castro, Same Cuba,” Online: http://www.hrw.org/node/86549/section/9 FG)
Dissidents also reported a pattern of excessive force by police and state security officers in the course of
arrests. On August 31, 2008, two members of the unofficial political group, Youth for Democracy
(Jovenes por la Democracia), Yordis García Fournier and Isael Poveda Silva, went to a police station in
Guantanamo to visit Enyor Díaz Allen, a fellow member who had been arbitrarily detained the day
before.[297] When the police would not permit the visit, García and Poveda stood outside the station
and began shouting pro-human rights and anti-Castro slogans. Without warning—as they would later
tell family members—police fired teargas at them and stormed out of the station, punching and kicking
them repeatedly even though they did not fight back.[298] García and Poveda were later sentenced to
one year and one year and four months in prison, respectively, for acting in contempt of authority.
Dissidents and family members who tried to attend trials of political detainees say they were routinely
harassed, threatened, and, in at least four cases, physically attacked. Simply attempting to observe the
administration of justice put them in danger.
Those who disagree with the regime are severely punished- protests are even staged
by the government outside their homes
Human Rights Watch, 2009
(11/19/2009, “New Castro, Same Cuba,” Online: http://www.hrw.org/node/86549/section/9 FG)
Acts of repudiation (actos de repudio) are public protests held outside the homes of dissidents. Like
other attacks, the acts are intended to humiliate and intimidate individuals who voice dissent, and have
repeatedly resulted in mob violence. Supposedly planned by civilians, the accounts of victims suggest
that government officials collaborate with “committees for the defense of the revolution” in carrying
out the acts. Acts of repudiation last anywhere from several hours to a full day. According to the victims,
the participants’ tactics include yelling insults and verbal threats, banging on pots and pans to create
noise, throwing stones at homes and defacing them with insulting graffiti, illegally invading homes, and
physically assaulting the inhabitants. While the acts are supposedly carried out by neighbors, every
victim of acts of repudiation pointed to evidence that suggested the government’s orchestrating role.
Many said the participants were bused to their homes in state-owned vehicles, such as military trucks or
public buses. The victims also said they had never met the participants before, who therefore had no
way of knowing about their activities, let alone justification for denouncing them. In addition, victims
said they observed certain participants wearing military fatigues or other government uniforms,
suggesting they worked for the state.
Cubans don’t have basic first amendment rights- nonviolent protests by groups that
oppose the government are broken up with physical violence from the police
Riego and Rodriguez, Harvard Human Rights Journal, 2011
(Alissa del and Adrianna C., Summer 2011, “Ladies in White: The Peaceful March Against Repressio Cuba
and Online, Harvard Human Rights Journal, Volume 24, pg 221-240, FG)
The Ladies in White, also known as "Las Damas de Blanco," are a dissident group of women in Cuba who
engage in forms of civil disobedience in opposition to Fidel and Raul Castro's regime. The Ladies
organized in 2003, after their loved ones were unjustly incarcerated for political dissidence. On March
17, 2010, one of their peaceful marches ended abruptly when Cuban government officials violently
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
85
removed them from the streets of Havana. Agents and supporters of the government verbally and
physically accosted the women.' Several women were pulled by their hair and limbs and forced onto
buses.^ Others were beaten because they resisted non-violently.' Many of the women were taken to
hospitals afterwards, where they were treated for various injuries resulting from the attack.'' March 17,
2010, however, was not the first time the Ladies in White were forced off the streets of Cuba, nor was it
the first time they faced violence from the Cuban government. It was also not the first time Cuban
dissidents were physically harmed for criticizing the Cuban government. During marches in 2008, several
of the Ladies in White were visibly bruised when the police physically removed them from the streets.'
Thanks in large part to the Internet, by March of 2010, a larger audience watched as the women were
accosted. The audience witnessed firsthand the violence in photographs, on television, and online. On
December 9, 2010, one day before the international Human Rights Day, videos posted on YouTube
showed the Ladies being assaulted as they peacefully marched through the streets of Havana with
pictures of their jailed loved ones and flowers in hand.<^ While Internet access in Cuba remains quite
restricted, users have managed to gain access to online content demonstrating the violence the Cuban
government has employed against the Ladies in White. On March 17, 2010, an onlooker on the streets of
Havana filmed as the Ladies in White were assaulted. Within a few hours, the scene was posted online,
and the video went viral. The international community was quick to respond. The Ladies' message
spread widely, and within four months, the Cuban government began releasing the prisoners.^ While
this Recent Development focuses on the violence the Ladies in White faced last March and their
continued efforts and successes, it also provides a larger testament to the growing voice of dissident
groups, who until recently were little known outside the Island, and whose message has finally escaped
the grasp of the Government's control of media through the Internet. The Cuban government has indeed
attempted to restrain access to the Internet, and Cuba remains among the handful of countries known
as the "Enemies of the Internet."** According to U.S. authorities in a memo leaked in 2010, the Cuban
Government continues its often unavailing attempts to further restrict Internet access, because its
greatest fear of dissidence comes from now internationally popular Cuban dissident bloggers.' The
Government's fears are well founded — those bloggers document for the world the repressive actions
of the Government, including its treatment of the Ladies in White.'" Through the Internet, the Ladies in
White and other dissident groups in all parts of the world have begun to resist repression by allowing
the international community to witness first hand accounts of repression and injustice.
Every invasion of freedom must be rejected.
Petro -74 (Sylvester Petro, professor of law, Wake Forest University, Spring 1974, TOLEDO LAW REVIEW, p. 480.)
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway – “I believe in only one thing: liberty.” And it is always well to bear in mind David
Hume’s observation: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the
invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects.
That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In
sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value, and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual
and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying
spirit.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
86
Impact – Iran Influence
Iran has strong ties to the Castro regime
Orsi, Journalist- writes a lot about Cuba, 2012
(Peter, 1/11/2012, “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran President, In Cuba on Latin America
Tour,” Article in the Huffington Post, Online:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-cuba_n_1200050.html FG)
HAVANA — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denounced capitalism Wednesday during a
speech at the University of Havana on the third leg of a trip to highlight friendships with his Latin
American allies, most of them thorns in Washington's side. Ahmadinejad held a private meeting later
with President Raul Castro and was expected to meet with Fidel Castro. In all, he planned to spend less
than 24 hours on the island before flying to Ecuador. At the university, the Iranian leader railed against
the United States and its allies and said heartless capitalism is the root cause of war. "Thankfully we
are already witnessing that the capitalist system is in decay," Ahmadinejad said. "On various stages it
has come to a dead end – politically, economically and culturally." "You see that when it lacks logic, they
turn to weapons to kill and destroy," he added. Ahmadinejad, who received an honorary doctorate from
the university, did not take questions or talk about a bombing earlier Wednesday in Tehran that killed a
nuclear scientist working at Iran's main uranium enrichment facility. Iran's government blamed the
killing on Israel, the U.S. and Britain. The U.S. denied involvement. The Iranian leader spoke warmly of
his Cuban hosts, describing the relationship of the two countries as "solidarity between two
revolutionary peoples," although the two revolutions couldn't have been more different. Iran's ushered
in a religious Islamic government, while Communist Cuba under Fidel Castro was officially atheist for
decades. Nevertheless, Iran and Cuba have found common cause in standing up to Washington. Fidel
Castro, who is retired, has repeatedly warned that a confrontation pitting the U.S. and Israel against
Iran could result in a nuclear exchange. Ahmadinejad began his Latin America tour shortly after
Washington imposed tougher sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear program. He previously visited
Venezuela and Nicaragua.
The Castro regime and Iran have a close alliance- leaders meet with each other
frequently
Haven, Associated Press bureau chief in Havana, 2012
(Paul, 1/12/2012, “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro Discuss World Events,” Online:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/ahmadinejad-castro_n_1202471.html FG)
HAVANA — Two of Washington's top irritants, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro, discussed
world events for two hours, and the Iranian leader on Thursday described the retired Cuban
revolutionary as healthy and engaged, and declared their two countries to be allies "fighting on the
same front." "It made me enormously happy to see the comandante healthy and fit," Ahmadinejad said
through a translator at an impromptu airport appearance alongside Fidel's brother, Cuban President
Raul Castro, before flying off to Ecuador for the final stop in his four-nation Latin America visit. Raul said
his 85-year-old brother and Ahmadinejad met for two hours Wednesday, "a demonstration that his
brain is working very well." Fidel Castro stepped down in 2006 due to an illness that nearly killed him,
but continues to write essays on world events. One of his main themes has been warning that a
conflict pitting the U.S. and Israel against Iran could lead the world toward nuclear Armageddon.
Iranian officials last year said they welcomed Castro's support, but did not share his apocalyptic
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
87
concerns, arguing the West would not dare attack. Raul Castro and the Iranian president also held a
late-night meeting Wednesday, discussing bilateral relations and world events. "We have common
positions on many things," Ahmadinejad said. "We have been, are and will be together one with the
other." Ahmadinejad took no questions about tensions between his country and Washington over Iran's
nuclear program, and did not comment on the assassination Wednesday of a nuclear scientist working
at Iran's main uranium enrichment facility. Iran's government blamed the killing on Israel, the U.S. and
Britain. The U.S. denied involvement. Ahmadinejad began his Latin America trip shortly after
Washington imposed tougher sanctions on Tehran over the nuclear program. He spent less than 24
hours in Cuba, following visits to Venezuela and Nicaragua.
The impact is extinction --- LA relations key to nuclear deterrence, secure borders,
preventing nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and preventing China, Russia, and Iran
from gaining political influence in Latin America.
Ferkaluk, Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base Wing
Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force, 10
(Brian, Fall 2010, Global Security Studies, “Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage,” pg 12,
ACCESSED June 29, 2013, RJ)
The policy implications for the United States are to maintain the role of a guiding figure in Latin
American developments. The stakes for the US have never been higher. In a region that has a strong
history of domestic terrorism and stratocracy, strong oversight is warranted. The current US
administration’s policy on nuclear deterrence is that the threat of a nuclear attack from a sovereign
state has gone down, but the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists has gone
up. No region of the world is closer to the US or has a greater ease of access to the US border than
Latin America. Therefore, it is vital that the US continue providing antiterrorism training to key Latin
American states, offer economic assistance and encourage mutual cooperation and information
sharing among allied states. Once this is accomplished, Latin American nuclear proliferation will cease
to be a factor in the terrorist activity that threatens each state to this day. The mutual cooperation
will help to diminish the activities of groups like the FARC and the AUC. Furthermore, international
groups such as Al Qaida and Hezbollah will not be able to acquire nuclear weapons should they
develop a stronger presence in the region. A blind eye should also not be turned towards states that
overtly refuse to cooperate in the GWOT. States like Venezuela and Nicaragua should not be left to
their own devices. The relationships that are being built with Russia and Iran must also be carefully
monitored. Venezuela may not be very close to a nuclear weapon, but the technology and applied
sciences it receives from both Iran and Russia has the potential to speed up its development. It has
already failed to acquire technology from its neighbors, so the US must continue to solidify its relations
with states like Brazil and Argentina and discourage any relations with Iran. If its leaders and diplomats
can continue to press that issue, it can curb the increase in trade between Latin America and Iran and
end the political and diplomatic connections Iran has been forming in recent years. Above any other
measure, the US must ensure that every Latin American nation knows that it cares about the
development and defense of the region. If that region is secure, the US is secure; and as long as the
region struggles with terrorism and nuclear proliferation, the US will be there to support it in every
way possible.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
88
Impact—Iran Influence—Impact Booster
Iranian prolif leads to Israeli strikes, US-Iran War, collapse of the NPT, and wildfire global
prolif
Hirsch, physics professor, 6
(Jorge, professor of physics at the University of California San Diego, “America's nuclear ticking bomb,” Jan 2006,
The San Diego Union Tribune, AD: 6-31-13,
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060103/news_mz1e3hirsch.html)
Iran's nuclear program has become a central theme in Israel's electoral campaign, with former Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu openly advocating a pre-emptive attack against Iran's nuclear installations, and his main
rival, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, explicitly not ruling out that possibility. Given the U.S. presence in Iraq and
its close alliance with Israel, the United States would necessarily become militarily involved in the aftermath
of such an Israeli attack.
Russia and China have sided with Iran in that it is legally entitled under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to
enrich uranium for nonmilitary purposes. The United States adamantly opposes Iran's restarting of any
uranium-enrichment-related activities and is pushing for Iran to be referred to the U.N. Security Council for
sanctions. The United States has explicitly not ruled out its own military option against Iran and has recently
exercised that option against a state (Iraq) suspected of having weapons of mass destruction and of sponsoring
terrorism. Iran certainly falls in that category.
If only conventional bombs are used in an unprovoked U.S. or Israeli aerial attack against Iran's facilities, Iran is
likely to retaliate with missiles against coalition forces in Iraq and against Israel, as well as possibly a ground
invasion of southern Iraq, that the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq would not be able to withstand. Iranian
missiles could potentially contain chemical warheads, and it certainly would be impossible to rule out such
possibility. Iran has signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (in 1993 and 1997 respectively),
however it is still likely to have supplies, as determined by the U.S. State Department in August 2005.
Early use by the United States of low-yield nuclear bombs with better bunker-busting ability than
conventional bombs targeting Iranian nuclear, chemical and missile installations would be consistent with the
new U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine and could be argued to be necessary to protect the lives of 150,000 U.S.
soldiers in Iraq and of Israeli citizens. It would also send a clear message to Iran that any response would be
answered by a far more devastating nuclear attack, thus potentially saving both American and Iranian lives.
However, the nuclear threshold is a line of no return. Once the United States uses a nuclear weapon against a
nonnuclear adversary, the 182 countries that are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty will
rightly feel at risk, and many of them will rush to develop their own nuclear deterrent while they can. A new
world with many more nuclear countries, and a high risk of any regional conflict exploding into all-out
nuclear war, will be the consequence.
The scientific community (which created nuclear weapons) is alarmed over the new U.S. nuclear weapons
policies. A petition to reverse these policies launched by physicists at the University of California San Diego has
gathered over 1,500 physicists' signatures including eight Nobel laureates and many prominent members of the
U.S. scientific establishment (http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/). Scientists object strongly to the concept of
WMD, that lumps together nuclear weapons with other "weapons of mass destruction" and blurs the sharp line
that separates immensely more destructive nuclear weapons from all other weapons.
An escalating nuclear war could lead to the destruction of civilization. There is no fundamental difference
between small nuclear bombs and large ones, nor between nuclear bombs targeting underground installations
versus those targeting cities or armies.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Terrorism Adv CP**
89
90
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
1NC
The counterplan solves --- the construction of the fence is the best internal link to
solving terrorism.
Ferkaluk, Executive Officer to the Commander at 88 Air Base Wing
Logistics Readiness Officer at United States Air Force, 10
(Brian, Fall 2010, Global Security Studies, “Latin America: Terrorist Actors on a Nuclear Stage,” pg 12,
ACCESSED June 29, 2013, RJ)
The policy implications for the United States are that of close surveillance and even closer diplomacy.
Latin America has historically been an area of relative hostility for the US. It is an area prone to
authoritarianism and is an ideal environment for violent ideologies to take root. Because of these
factors, it is potentially susceptible to influence from the enemies of the US. Although it has made
great strides in the last few decades, its tendency toward disunion has made it particularly difficult to
fully mobilize it against terrorist activity. It also means the US cannot afford to ignore Latin America as
a potential battleground in the GWOT. The dramatic pink tide in Latin American politics has commanded
the attention of US foreign policy. If the US does not continue to engage Latin America with antiterrorist support, it will quickly become a manifestation of the type of terrorism that has exploded in
the Middle East and the political-revolutionary type of terrorism that has exploded in Africa. The US
must continue to demonstrate to Latin American states that it fully supports their struggle against
leftist guerrillas. It must do this also as delicately as possible. For instance, the US provided economic
and military assistance to El Salvador in its struggle against a leftist guerrilla insurgency. If the US does
not continue to support Latin states who call out for help in their time of need, they will either be
overcome by the revolutionaries that threaten their existence, or they will be heavily influenced by
the more leftist Latin American regimes, spreading their militant ideologies across the region. The first
thing that must be done is the US must pass stronger legislation which hampers illegal immigration. At
the same time it must build the much debated fence along its southern border. In doing so, it will
constrain the illegal drug market that originates in Latin America, making leftist guerrillas just about
incapable of financially sustaining their violent operations. It will also hamper their efforts to enter
the US to exploit any other market that it could potentially live off of. In the meantime, the US must
continue to maintain a presence in every Latin American ally. It must continue to train Latin
governments to conduct better airport security, counterterrorism measures and law enforcement
cooperation. In providing military, and even economic, support, the goal of the US should be increased
cooperation amongst all Latin American states. That way, Latin American allies will be able to
overcome the leftist trends taking place in the region and, most importantly, overcome the influences
of the belligerent states of the region, namely Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela
It solves --- history proves
Kelly, columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette, 6/25
(Jack, June 25, 2013, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “A sturdy border fence isn’t a close-minded idea,”
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/jack-kelly/a-sturdy-border-fence-isnt-a-closed-mindedidea-693072/, ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)
Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal is a journalist for whose judgment and integrity I have great
respect. So I was embarrassed for him when he wrote June 19 that building a fence along our border
with Mexico "would be America's Berlin Wall -- a historic embarrassment." A border fence would be
futile, said Janet Napolitano, now the Secretary of Homeland Security. "Show me a 50-foot wall and I'll
show you a 51-foot ladder." The Berlin Wall was built to keep East Germans from getting out, not to
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
91
keep West Germans from coming in. But the more fundamental problem with Mr. Henninger's grossly
offensive analogy is that the Berlin Wall worked. Before it was erected in August of 1961, about 3 million
people -- roughly 20 percent of the East German population -- fled to the West. They fled mostly
through Berlin, to which East Germans were permitted to travel. Between then and the fall of the Berlin
Wall in 1989, there were between 5,000 and 40,000 escape attempts, most of which failed. That the
Berlin Wall did what the Communists expected it to is no surprise to soldiers, who've known for
millennia that barriers work. Hadrian's Wall kept barbarians out of Romanized Britain for more than
200 years. Constantinople's famous wall kept that city safe from foreign invaders for nearly 1,000
years. Barriers have to be guarded, which is what makes Ms. Napolitano's statement so disingenuous,
and so alarming. When they are guarded, barriers can be very effective. In the 34 months between
September of 2000, when the intifada began, and July of 2003, when construction started on a
security fence between Israel and the West Bank, 293 Israelis were killed and 1,950 wounded in 73
attacks by Palestinian terrorists. Since construction of the fence began, the number of terror attacks
has fallen by about 90 percent, the number of Israelis killed or wounded in them by about 75 percent.
The fence now stretches more than 400 miles, and is nearly complete. The longer it got, the fewer
successful attacks there were. "The security fence has huge benefits." Israeli army Capt. Barak Raz told
NPR in May. "No one can argue with the statistics that it simply brought an end to that free flow of
terrorism." About 500,000 illegals cross into Mexico each year from Guatemala and Belize. To stanch
the flow, Mexico is building a fence along its southern border. That's one of the reasons why I don't
fret as much as Mr. Henninger does that Mexican feelings will be hurt if we build a border fence. Our
border with Mexico stretches 1,969 miles, about the same as the distance between Tijuana and Chicago.
It would be foolish, Mr. Henninger said, to fence it all off. Only an idiot would build a fence along the
entire border -- hundreds of miles of which is so arid a camel would have to carry extra water to traverse
it. But fencing off high traffic areas could reduce illegal border crossings to a trickle, the Israeli
experience makes clear. The fencing required would be closer to Israel's 400 miles than to 2,000. If the
Israelis can do it, why can't we? If the Romans and the Byzantines could do it, why can't we? We can,
of course, which is why opponents of a border fence rely on emotional arguments. "I don't really want
to live in a country that has a fence around it," said Kirsten Powers, who is both thoughtful and civil, rare
qualities in liberals these days. She's entitled to her opinion, as I am to mine, and I don't want to live in a
country where officials don't enforce the law, break it themselves, and lie to us constantly. Illegal
immigration is an enormous problem now, but it would be neither difficult nor expensive to reduce it
to a minor irritant.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
92
2NC Doesn’t Link to Politics
And it avoids the link to politics – Republicans love the counterplan and it has worked
historically
Hoffmann, top reporter for Newsmax, 6/27
(Bill, 27 Jun 2013, Newsmax, “Mexico Peeved Over US Border Fence Plan,”
http://www.newsmax.com/us/fence-mexico-meade-security/2013/06/27/id/512308, ACCESSED Jun 30,
2013, RJ)
Officials in Mexico are peeved at plans by the United States to spend tens of billions of dollars for
additional fencing and other security along the U.S.-Mexico border. "Mexico is convinced that our public
policies should be coordinated and should recognize the importance of the border for competitiveness,
job creation, and the social well-being of both countries," Mexican Foreign Minister Jose Antonio Meade
said. "We are convinced that fences don't unite. They are not the solution to the immigration
phenomenon, and they don't jibe with a modern and secure border," said the foreign minister in a
translation of his Spanish language statement provided by GlobalPost. "They don't contribute to the
development of the competitive region that both countries seek to promote." Last week, a Senate
committee earmarked $46 billion to double the U.S. Border Patrol and to build 700 more miles of antiimmigrant fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. The influx of Mexican immigrants has plummeted in
recent years with new fencing and the U.S. economic downturn. The U.S. Border Patrol detained
about 1.6 million undocumented immigrants in 2000 and just over 260,000 last year, the website says.
The fence has become a key part of the Senate's immigration bill scheduled to be voted on Thursday.
Many Republicans have signaled support for the bill since an amendment including the fence and
increased border patrols was accepted.
And it avoids the link to politics – Republicans love the counterplan and it has worked
historically
Hoffmann, top reporter for Newsmax, 6/27
(Bill, 27 Jun 2013, Newsmax, “Mexico Peeved Over US Border Fence Plan,”
http://www.newsmax.com/us/fence-mexico-meade-security/2013/06/27/id/512308, ACCESSED Jun 30,
2013, RJ)
Officials in Mexico are peeved at plans by the United States to spend tens of billions of dollars for
additional fencing and other security along the U.S.-Mexico border. "Mexico is convinced that our public
policies should be coordinated and should recognize the importance of the border for competitiveness,
job creation, and the social well-being of both countries," Mexican Foreign Minister Jose Antonio Meade
said. "We are convinced that fences don't unite. They are not the solution to the immigration
phenomenon, and they don't jibe with a modern and secure border," said the foreign minister in a
translation of his Spanish language statement provided by GlobalPost. "They don't contribute to the
development of the competitive region that both countries seek to promote." Last week, a Senate
committee earmarked $46 billion to double the U.S. Border Patrol and to build 700 more miles of antiimmigrant fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. The influx of Mexican immigrants has plummeted in
recent years with new fencing and the U.S. economic downturn. The U.S. Border Patrol detained
about 1.6 million undocumented immigrants in 2000 and just over 260,000 last year, the website says.
The fence has become a key part of the Senate's immigration bill scheduled to be voted on Thursday.
Many Republicans have signaled support for the bill since an amendment including the fence and
increased border patrols was accepted.
93
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
AT: Perm
Lifting the embargo increases drug trafficking --- only the counterplan solves
Atlee, Professor at FSU Panama, 09
(Matt, April 13, 2009, offshorewave.com, “The Pros And Cons Of An Open Cuba – Obama’s Cuban Policy
– By Matthew Atlee,” http://www.offshorewave.com/offshorenews/the-pros-and-cons-of-an-opencuba-obamas-cuban-policy-by-matthew-atlee.html , ACCESSED June 30, 2013, RJ)
While Cuba has had a communist government there have been no significant flow of drugs through
the country. Cuba is never mentioned as a point along the drug chain to the U.S. If the country were
to open back up that would certainly change. In the 1950s Cuba had a drug trade; it was shutdown by
the communists. If the communists are no longer in power, there is little doubt that drug shipments
through Cuba would begin. Another problem might be a massive movement of people off the island to
Miami in order to reunite with family members who left Cuba years ago. So if Cuba opened its borders
there might be a massive wave of Cubans heading to Miami. Another problem might be a conflict
between Cuban-Americans returning to the island to claim family property and Cubans living on those
properties. Many Cuban-Americans don’t recognize the fact that their family properties were
expropriated by the state after the revolution – they want to wrestle those properties back. The process
of transition in Cuba will take years if not decades and it needs to be done in such a way so as not to
recreate the forces that brought about the 1959 communist revolution in the first place.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Hegemony Adv CP**
94
95
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
1NC
CP Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase its
military engagement in the Asia-Pacific region
Rising Chinese heg is zero sum with U.S. leadership
Xia, Professor of Political Science at the Graduate Center and the College of Staten
Island, NDG
(Ming Xia, New York Times, No Date Given, “"China Threat" or a "Peaceful Rise of
China"?, http://www.nytimes.com/ref/college/coll-china-politics-007.html,
6/27/2013, PD)
"China's rise" can be seen as a quintessentially political process—through which the ruling Communist
Party has sought to shore up its legitimacy after the Cultural Revolution irreversibly changed the nation
and caused three crises of ideological belief, faith in the CPC, and confidence in the future. As the Party
realized that the performance-based legitimacy was the only hope for prolonging its rule, economic
development became the highest politics. Consequentially, the success of economic development
would have to cause political implications—the external ones are carefully monitored and evaluated by
China's neighbors and the only superpower of the world—the United States. Will China become a threat
to the United States, Japan, and surrounding countries? The reason for American concern mainly
arises from its hegemonic status in the world politics and the ideological incompatibility of China with
the Western value system. China's stunning economic growth has convinced the West that it is just a
matter of time until China becomes a world superpower. But its ideological orientation makes China a
revolutionary power that is threatening both to the United States' status and global structure. Three
different logics have been constructed to substantiate the "China threat" thesis. First, ideological and
cultural factors make China a threat. For neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration, the mere factor
that China still sticks to communism makes view it adversely. Samuel Huntington has added a cultural
factor: in the clash of civilizations, the "unholy alliance between Islamic and Confucian civilizations" is
the most fundamental threat to the West. For people using this logic, the sensible response from the
U.S. is, in the short run, a containment policy, and confrontation is possible if needed; in the long run,
the promotion of a peaceful transformation within China. Second, geopolitical and geoeconomic
factors. For many realists, even China has shed off its ideological straitjacket, as a great power in size
(territory, population, and economy), China has to pursue its own interest and respect. Nationalism may
still drive China into a course of clash with the United States, if the latter refuses to accommodate or
share the leadership with China as a rising power. Some scholars fear that democracy can unleash
strong nationalism and popular nationalism can make China even more aggressive toward the United
States. Third, the collapse of China. Opposed to the previous two perspectives, some people are
concerned that if China suffers a Soviet-style sudden-death syndrome and spins out of control, it can
create an even worse scenario. The sheer size of the population makes refuge problem, the failed state
and the followed crises (warlordism, civil war, crime, proliferation of nuclear weapons, etc) impossible
for the world to deal with. Due to these three different considerations, the United States often oscillates
from demonization to romaticization of China, from containment to engagement. The U.S.-China
relationship has shifted from conflict, to confrontation, to competition and back to conflict, but so
rarely features with cooperation. One American China specialist characterizes the bilateral relationship
as "the sweet-and-sour Sino-American relationship."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
96
Taiwan is key to checking Chinese hegemony- U.S. military engagement in Taiwan
solves
Stokes & Hsiao, Executive Director @ the Project 2049 Institute, Senior Research
Fellow @ the Project 2049 Institute, ‘12
(Marks, Russell, The Diplomat, 4/13/12, “Cuban Economic Sanctions: The Time Has
Come to Lift Them and Move Forward”, http://thediplomat.com/2012/04/13/why-us-military-needs-taiwan/, 6/30/13, PD)
To be sure, the United States faces a number of challenges in meeting its security commitments in the
Asia-Pacific region. Beyond uncertainty, complexity, and rapid change, challenges include growing
resource constraints and an increasingly assertive and capable China. At least one driver for rethinking
U.S. defense strategy is the growing ability of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to
complicate U.S. ability to project joint power and operate in the Asia-Pacific region. These emerging
PLA A2/AD capabilities not only could complicate U.S. ability to operate, but also imperil regional
powers’ ability to deny the PLA air superiority and command of the seas. Anti-access threats, designed
to prevent an opposing force from entering an operational area, include long-range precision strike
systems that could be employed against bases and moving targets at sea, such as aircraft carrier battle
groups. Area denial involves shorter-range actions and capabilities designed to complicate an opposing
force’s freedom of action in all domains (i.e., land, air, space, sea and cyber). The Pentagon’s Air-Sea
Battle and the Joint Operational Access Concept (JOAC) transcends pure operational and roles of
services issues to include cooperation with allies and ad hoc coalition partners in the region, which is
critical for ensuring the success of Air Sea Battle and assured operational access. As former Chairman,
Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen said, Air-Sea Battle is “a prime example of how we need to
keep breaking down stovepipes between services, between federal agencies and even between
nations.” He further noted that the Services should “integrate our efforts with each other and with our
civilian counterparts” and “work seamlessly with old allies and new friends.” Air Sea Battle and the
broader JOAC shore up deterrence and demonstrate to U.S. allies and partners that Washington is
committed and able to resist Chinese military coercion. Addressing these challenges requires greater
collaboration not only within the U.S. defense establishment, but effective leveraging of talents of
allies and ad hoc coalition partners in the region. The U.S. reportedly has begun examining how to
diversify defense relations with traditional allies in the region, such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia.
Yet, little consideration appears to have been given to the significant role that Taiwan could play in an
evolving U.S. defense strategy, including the JOAC and Air-Sea Battle. Taiwan’s future and U.S.
interests in regional security are intimately related. Indeed, Taiwan is a core interest of the United
States and has a pivotal role to play as an ad hoc coalition partner in Air-Sea Battle, JOAC, and the
strategic rebalancing in the Asia-Pacific. First, Taiwan should be the central guiding focus of defense
planning in the Asia-Pacific region. In assessing JOAC and Air-Sea Battle-related requirements, the
greatest emphasis should be placed on contingency planning for a PLA amphibious invasion of Taiwan
with minimal warning. Based on a premature and faulty assumption that cross-Strait trade and
investment will inevitably lead toward Taiwan’s democratic submission to Chinese Communist Party
(CCP) authoritarian rule, prominent analysts have asserted that the focus of U.S. defense planning
should shift toward the South China Sea and defense of the global commons. While freedom of
navigation is important, shifting our focus entirely over to uninhabited specks of land and access to
preferred waterways for shipping therein are not as salient as defending a fellow democracy and
critical node in the global economic supply chain. To be sure, Taiwan’s precarious situation shouldn’t
be viewed in isolation from the South China Sea. Beyond the relative saliency of Taiwan, U.S. law under
the Taiwan Relations Act stipulates that it is in the U.S. interest “to maintain the capacity of the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
97
United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the
security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.” The myth that Taiwan is inevitably
moving into Beijing’s orbit certainly serves CCP interests. This ostensibly self-fulfilling prophesy bears
watching. Due to the inherent complications associated with an amphibious invasion, Taiwan is and will
remain defendable. China’s main strategic direction remains unchanged, however. It is Taiwan that
the CCP obsesses over. Disputes with neighbors around the South China Sea can be modulated at will.
On the other hand, Taiwan and its democracy present an existential threat to the CCP, and the PLA
has done nothing to reduce its military posture opposite the island. In fact, its missile infrastructure
has grown as new units have been put into place and more advanced ballistic missiles introduced. If
strategic planners must choose between freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and defense of
Taiwan as the basis of U.S. force planning, one would hope that President Obama doesn’t abandon
Taiwan.
98
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
2NC – Politics Shield
Congress supports Taiwanese security- no link
Kan & Morrison, Specialist in Asian Security Affairs, Specialist in Asian Trade and
Finance, 5/8
(Shirley A., Wayne M., Congressional Research Service, 5/8/13, “U.S.-Taiwan
Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues”,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41952.pdf, 6/30/13, PD)
With active congressional involvement, the United States has played critical roles in Taiwan’s
economic development, political liberalization from an authoritarian dictatorship to a dynamic
democracy, self-defense against the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC’s) military threats, and
preservation of international space. Overall, U.S. policy seeks to support security, political, and
economic interests that involve peace and stability, the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan’s
efforts to maintain international space, democracy and human rights in Taiwan, and U.S. businesses in
Taiwan. As a critical concern, the United States has interests in the ties or tension across the Taiwan
Strait, which affect international security (with potential U.S. intervention), the U.S.-Taiwan
relationship, and U.S.-PRC cooperation. The cross-strait relationship has grown closer since the 1980s.
When James Lilley arrived as the U.S. representative in Taipei in 1982, he was one of the first officials to
encourage cross-strait economic ties as the driver in a trend toward greater peace and security.1
Indeed, closer economic engagement gradually has increased regular contacts and reduced tension
across the Taiwan Strait.
Congressional support for Taiwan
Lowther, Staff Writer for Taipei Times, 6/7
(William, Taipei Times, “Remember Taiwan, US Congress members tell Obama,”
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/06/07/2003564170,
6/7/2013, EB)
Leaders of the US Congressional Taiwan Caucus have written to US President Barack Obama urging
him to remember Taiwan’s “vital interests” during the two-day summit with Chinese President Xi
Jinping (習近平) which starts today in California.¶ “Taiwan is a strong democracy, a close trading
partner, and an ally of the US,” they said in the letter.¶ It is signed by Republican representatives
Mario Diaz-Balart and John Carter, and Democratic representatives Gerald Connolly and Albio Sires.¶
“While we recognize that your discussions with Chinese leaders will cover a range of issues, we hope
that you will be mindful of Taiwan’s needs,” the letter said.¶ The four Congressional members — all cochairs of the caucus — said that should matters concerning Taiwan be raised, “we urge you to
emphasize” that the US position remains clear, consistent with the assurances that the US offered
Taiwan in 1982, that is, the US will support Taiwan’s security and will continue to provide it with arms
as required under the Taiwan Relations Act.¶ They reminded Obama that it is US policy to consider any
non-peaceful means to determine Taiwan’s future “a threat” to the peace and security of the Western
Pacific, and of “grave concern” to the US.¶ China “has engaged in a large-scale military build-up over the
past few years and has not abandoned the threat of force, with over 1,600 ballistic and cruise missiles
now being aimed at Taiwan, a significant increase from the previous year,” they wrote.¶ Taiwan is now
one of the main targets of Chinese cyberwarfare, the Congressional members said, and it is “of the
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
99
utmost importance” that Beijing understands the US’ firm commitment to ensuring that Taiwan has
the tools to defend itself.¶ “We also hope you will raise the issue of Taiwan’s participation in
international organizations, as it will greatly benefit Taiwan and the rest of the world if Taiwan can be
included in the International Civil Aviation Organization and other multilateral bodies,” the letter said.
Empirics prove- Congress supports Taiwan
Lao and Wu, Staff Writer for Focus Taiwan, 6/28
(Tony and Sofia, Focus Taiwan, “U.S. Congress finalizes legislation backing Taiwan's
ICAO bid,” http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aall/201306280010.aspx, 6/28/2013, EB)
Washington, June 27 (CNA) The U.S. Congress finalized legislation Thursday in support of Taiwan's bid
to participate in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as an observer.¶ The bill, which
calls for the U.S. secretary of state to endorse Taiwan's entry into the air safety promotion
organization is now pending signing into law by President Barack Obama.¶ The House of
Representatives and the Senate each passed resolutions supporting Taiwan's ICAO bid earlier this
month. As their versions were the same, the two chambers moved quickly to pass the bill.¶ Sen. Robert
Menendez, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, who initiated the Senate
resolution, said the legislation marks a step forward in Taiwan's pursuit of ICAO participation.¶ It's a
positive development, Menendez said, adding that Taiwan should not be shut out of the important
international organization simply because of its special political status.¶ Noting that Taiwan can
contribute much to the ICAO, Menendez said the congressional legislation is a belated recognition of
Taiwan's contributions to maintaining international flight safety.¶ He further said that Taiwan's
attendance at the triennial ICAO conference will help ensure the safety of flights between Taiwan and
the United States, as well as elsewhere.¶ The ICAO is a United Nations specialized agency promoting safe
and efficient travel. It is scheduled to hold its triennial assembly this September in Montreal, Canada.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Latin American Relations CP**
100
101
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
1NC
Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic
engagement with the Republic of Brazil.
Obama and Biden Want to strengthen ties with Brazil
Federal News Radio, Full-power radio station in Washington DC that broadcasts
news/information targeted toward US government employees, 13
(5/31/13, Federal News Radio, “US VP Biden says Brazil-US Relations enter new era”,
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/618/3343114/US-VP-Biden-says-Brazil-USrelations-enter-new-era, 6/30/13, AL)
BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) -- Stronger trade ties and closer cooperation in education, science and other fields
should usher in a new era in U.S.- Brazil relations in 2013, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said Friday.¶
"The president (Obama) wanted to make a statement of the importance that the relationship with
Brazil has for us," Biden said. "That is why the first state visit of the second administration is to your
president. We are pleased that your president has accepted the invitation."¶ "It is a sign of the respect we
have for Brazil. I hope 2013 marks the beginning of a new era in the relations between our two
countries," he added¶ Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota said U.S.-Brazil relations should
"focus on areas like science, technology, innovation and education."¶ Biden told reporters he had a
"wide-ranging discussion" with Rousseff who he said was a "leader who is laser-focused on addressing
the needs of the Brazilian people. I now understand why President Obama considers her such a great
partner."
Biden pushes--shields the link
Oppenheimer, Miami Herald syndicated columnist, 13
(Andres, 6/2/13, Stabroek News, “Biden – new US point man for Latin America”,
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2013/features/06/02/biden-new-us-point-man-forlatin-america/, 6/30/13, AL)
Perhaps Secretary of State John Kerry’s
lack of attention to Latin America might not be so bad after all — it is
moving Vice President Joe Biden to get more involved with the region, and may help turn US-Latin
American relations into a White House foreign policy priority. Biden’s six-day tour of Colombia, Trinidad and Tobago and
Brazil this week has raised eyebrows in Washington. Shortly before, on May 8, Biden had delivered a speech at the State
Department on the future of US-Latin American ties.¶ Meacham, like many other Latin America watchers in Washington,
believes that Biden’s greater activism on hemispheric issues is a welcome development, and reflects a
greater interest by the Obama administration in the region.¶ Eric Farnsworth, head of the Washington office of the Council of
the Americas, a New York-based business-centered group, says that Biden may play a key role in US-Latin American ties
not only because he is in the White House, close to the president and has close connections in Congress ,
but also because he is believed to be a leading presidential hopeful for 2016.¶ It’s too early to know. But this is the
time when it could happen — early in Obama’s second term, before his administration is on its way out. Biden is ideally positioned
to push for it within the White House.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
102
Net Benefit—Latin American Economy
US-Brazil Innovation will be a global benefit
Slack, Deputy director of digital content for the Office of Digital Strategy at the White
House, 13
(Megan, 5/31/13, www.whitehouse.gov, “Vice President Biden Discusses the ‘Start of
a new era of U.S. – Brazilian relations’”,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/05/31/vice-president-biden-discusses-startnew-era-us-brazilian-relations, 6/30/13, AL)
During his visit, he delivered a speech in Rio de Janeiro about the promise
of a strong U.S.-Brazil partnership. “President
Obama and I believe that the times present an incredible opportunity for a new era of relations between
the United States and the Americas,” the Vice President explained. “But none -- no partner is more significant in this
endeavor than Brazil.Ӧ The United States and Brazil represent two of the largest, most innovative,
dynamic economies in the world today. It is true both of us can continue to prosper whether or not we deepen our economic
relations. But imagine, just imagine what these two dynamic economies could do with greater trade and
investment for our people, for the hemisphere, for the world. ¶ In addition to strengthening the
economic relationship between our two countries, the Vice President also discussed other areas
where we can work together, including energy, global development and people-to-people ties.
Brazil is key to the Latin American Country’s Economies
Lyons and Cordoba, Correspondent at The Wall Street Journal in Brazil, graduate of
the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, 12
(John, Jose, 2/1/12, Wall Street Journal, “Brazil’s President Flexes Clout in Cuba
Trip”,http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702039202045771953232799618
12.html, 6/30/13, AL)
"This
is about growing Brazil's soft power on the international scale and raising Brazil's role in the
world," said Matthew Taylor, a Brazil specialist at the American University's School of International Service. " Brazil is taking on a bigger role
in the hemisphere in terms of aid and finance, and by helping out Cuba they really draw attention to
this new role they are playing." Although the U.S. has been the predominant power broker in Latin America since the introduction of the
Monroe Doctrine in 1823, experts say the U.S. doesn't oppose Brazil's bid for regional influence. Many analysts say they believe Brazil
could become a stabilizing force in a region known for political and economic volatility. "Human rights aren't
a stone to be thrown from one side to another," she said in Havana on Tuesday. This week, Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota said human rights
aren't an "emergency" issue in Cuba. Last month, Cuban political prisoner Wilmar Villar died in jail after a 50-day hunger strike. Activists said
he was protesting being jailed for taking part in a political demonstration. The Cuban government has said Mr. Villar was a common prisoner and wasn't on a
hunger strike when he died of complications from pneumonia. Such aspirations were the butt of jokes during generations of economic and political turmoil. That
started to change a nearly a decade ago, when Brazil
began an economic expansion that lifted millions out of poverty
and transformed the resource-rich nation into what some economists estimate is the world's sixthlargest economy—a notch ahead of the U.K.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
103
Net Benefit—Global Economy
Brazil’s Economy is key to the global economy
Bureau of International Information Programs, Sate Department’s foreign-facing
public diplomacy communications bureau, 13
(Bureau of International Information Programs, 6/24/13, “U.S. Trade Officials on
Brazil’s Trade Policy Review”,
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/06/20130624277497.html#
axzz2XkCV3ryA, 6/30/13, AL)
The United States has always viewed Brazil as an important and valued trading partner. As the
two largest economies and
democracies in the Western Hemisphere, the United States and Brazil share ties that have expanded
over the years with increased trade, capital flows, cross-border investment, and a wide range of
educational, health, scientific and other joint activities.¶ Brazil is a major force in the global economy.
Growing trade, significant oil discoveries, financial stability, low inflation, rising investment, and a booming middle class are some of the factors
that have contributed to Brazil’s rise as a prosperous and influential country on the world stage. During the period under review, Brazil enjoyed
strong economic performance with real GDP growth averaging 3.6 percent per year. Sustained
economic growth over the past
decade has allowed Brazil to lift millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class and reduce
income inequality.¶ Focusing for a moment on our bilateral trade relationship, as the world’s seventh largest economy and the United
States’ eighth largest trading partner, Brazil has become a vital market for U.S. companies. Two-way U.S. goods and services
trade with Brazil totaled $103 billion in 2011. Overall, U.S. goods imports from Brazil are up 269 percent
over the last 18 years (following the Uruguay Round). The picture is also encouraging for U.S.-Brazil services trade. In 2011, U.S. exports
of private commercial services to Brazil were $21.7 billion, while Brazil’s supply of private commercial services to the United States was $6.9
billion in 2011, up 256 percent from 2000 levels. U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Brazil (stock) was $71.1 billion in 2011, up 10.8 percent
from 2010 levels. Brazilian FDI in the United States (stock) was $5 billion in 2011, up a dramatic 266 percent from 2010 levels.
Economic collapse causes nuclear war
Harris and Burrows, PhD European History at Cambridge and NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit, 9
(Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long
Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”
http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf, 6-31-13)
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting
and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended
consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history
may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to
Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful
effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the
sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think
that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways
in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile
economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that
terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal
will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For
believe that the
those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s
most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established
groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated
attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become
self-radicalized, particularly in the
absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most
dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost
certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran
could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
104
additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable
deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a
nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could
lead to an unintended
escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close
proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian
missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack.
The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of
Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises.
36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if
protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy
scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in
interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be
essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have
important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as
China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal
stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns
inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities
could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for
multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East,
cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and
between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
Cooperating with Brazil will Solve Global Issues
Barshefsky et al, serves on the Board of the Council on Foreign Relations, 8
(James Hill, commander of the US Southern Command who commanded all US military
operations and relationships in the Caribbean and Central and South America,
Shannon O’Neil, on the council of foreign relations, May 08, “US-Latin America
Relations: A new direction for a new reality”, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/us-latinamerica-relations/p16279, 6/30/13, AL)
Brazil is the fourth-largest democracy and the ninth-largest economy in the world, and it has become an
increasingly important actor not only in Latin America but globally. The Task Force recommends that the
United States build on its existing and welcome collaboration with Brazil on ethanol to develop a more
consistent, coordinated, and broader partnership that incorporates a wide range of bilateral, regional, and
global issues. One crucial area for partnership is regional security. Expanding on current peacekeeping efforts, the United States
should broaden and deepen regional security cooperation with Brazil. The narcotics trade threatens
Brazil’s security, as it is an important transit country for the European drug market and increasingly a consumer
country of cocaine and other drugs. Increasing Brazilian involvement in the fight against narcotics through govern- ment-togovernment cooperation and joint security initiatives will not only ease the U.S. burden in the war on
drugs, but will also make U.S. and Brazilian efforts more effective.¶ The United States should also work
closely with Brazil to push forward the Doha Round of global trade negotiations. While this would mean changing domestic
agricultural policies, U.S. negotiators could then aggressively pursue more open markets in U.S. areas of concern.¶
Finally, energy and climate change provide ample opportunity for deepening ties and securing mutual
economic and environmental advantages. Both the United States and Brazil are increasingly turning to
LNG to satisfy future energy demands. The United States should work together with Brazil to develop
the LNG hemispheric market, benefiting both countries’ energy matrixes. On biofuels, the United
105
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
States should pursue a broader joint policy initiative that promotes the development of environmentally sensitive
alternative fuels in the region and around the world.
Brazil is key to Latin America’s cooperation projects and Stability
Pinheiro and Gaio, IRI/PUC-Rio, ISCSP/Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa, 13
(Leticia and Gabrieli, 3/27/13, University of Oxford, “Brazilian Studies Programme”,
http://www.lac.ox.ac.uk/sites/sias/files/documents/BSP-11-13%20Pinheiro%20L.pdf,
6/30/13, AL)
According to an annual report launched by Ibero-American General ¶ Secretary (SEGIB), Brazil
is the main responsible for
cooperation projects in ¶ South America (SEGIB, 2012). In 2011, the country provided nearly 210 ¶ cooperation projects,
followed by 120 projects provided by Argentina. In the ¶ same year, Brazil responded for 35% of all projects executed in the region and ¶
provided 75 of the total 192 cooperation projects of social dimension in South ¶ America. Concerning projects that envisaged services and
infrastructure ¶ sectors, Brazil was responsible for 26 in a total of 69 projects. It is worth ¶ noting that, although Argentina also plays a relevant
role in regional ¶ cooperation, the country only exceeds Brazil when it comes to cooperation ¶ actions, not cooperation projects. According to
the same report, cooperation ¶ actions are more punctual, less complex and expensive than cooperation ¶ projects. Differently from
cooperation actions, cooperation projects tend to ¶ involve more costs and envisage the long-run term. In this
sense, while ¶ cooperation projects tend to subsist for about a year and a half, cooperation ¶ actions normally last a little more than one month.
Brazil has been the main ¶ responsible for cooperation projects in South America since 2010, when it ¶
exceeded the projects offered by Cuba and Venezuela, which were the leading ¶ countries in the offering of cooperation
projects in 2009 (SEGIB, 2010; 2011; ¶ 2012). ¶ From 2003 to 2012, Brazil has promoted more than 400 cooperation
¶ projects in South America. Some of them have already been concluded and ¶ others are still in execution. Most of these
projects are mainly related to ¶ cooperation and transfer of knowledge in different sectors, such as
health, ¶ fishing, agriculture, industry and energy. Generally, a large part of them tend ¶ to share with other countries
Brazilian national experiences in such sectors. ¶ The projects can be bilateral, involving Brazil and another country, or ¶ multilateral, involving
Brazil and more than one country. Countries like Peru, ¶ Paraguay, Bolivia and Colombia are among the most beneficiated ones by ¶ Brazilian
cooperation projects. Respectively, these countries have been ¶ engaged in 76, 71, 68 and 53 cooperation projects with Brazil between 2003 ¶
and 2012 .
106
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
Net Benefit—Economy—Impact Booster
Prefer the impact of economic decline to any other impact—probability is not just a question of the
internal link chain, it’s a question of the truth claims of their impact authors—even if we concede their
advantages our impact is still more probable because it has epistemological justification
Royal ‘10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction – U.S. Department of Defense, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling
and the Problem of Economic Crises”, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p.
213-215)
y
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline ma increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political
science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of
interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow.
First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody
transition
from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could
usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances,
increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of
power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power
(Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood
of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions
and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that
of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and
security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have
an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to
replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use
'future expectation
force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade
expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have
considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg
and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict,
particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and
prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover,
of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts
self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase
the presence
in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to
external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary
theory" suggests that,
when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to
fabricate external military conflicts
to create a 'rally around the flag' effect.
Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of
force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the
tendency
towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic
leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence
showing that periods
of weak economic performance in the U nited S tates, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are
statistically linked to
an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship
positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political
science
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
107
scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5
This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and
deserves more attention.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
108
**Conditions CP**
Only conditional policies solve
Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 08
(Robert, 2/20/08, “A Card to Play for Cuba’s Freedom,” The Washington Post, p. A17, IC)
The long-awaited "resignation" of Fidel Castro may give both Cubans and Americans a chance to escape the trap they've been in for more than
four decades. Fidel's brother Raúl will now officially become Cuba's maximum leader, a role he has held unofficially throughout Castro's long
debility. That the Cuban leadership has finally reached the point where it must announce a changing of the dictatorial guard indicates this is a
good time for the United States to suggest a different and more hopeful course. Instead of passing the torch to a new generation of dictators,
Cuba's leaders could commit themselves to hold free and fair elections by the end of this year. And they could begin by unconditionally
releasing all the political prisoners held in their jails.¶ To
encourage the broader transition to democracy, the United
States should be more than a passive spectator. It can now use the leverage it has long held but been unable to use while Fidel
was in charge. In exchange for Cuba's holding free and fair elections, monitored and certified over the entire electoral cycle
by respected international election monitors, the Bush administration could offer to ease and eventually lift the economic
embargo against Cuba and to restore full political, diplomatic and economic relations with the island nation.¶ The lifting of
the embargo could be undertaken in stages linked to the fulfillment by the Cuban government of key conditions necessary for holding elections.
These would include allowing genuine independent opposition parties to function, freeing the press and other media and opening them up to
the opposition, allowing international nongovernmental organizations to provide elections training and technical assistance to the Cuban
people -- in short, taking all the steps necessary to hold a full election campaign in which opposition parties have an equal chance to participate
and compete.¶ With international monitors in place months in advance of any vote, the actions of the Cuban government could be watched
and evaluated for compliance by members of the U.S. Congress and respected international figures. The Bush administration could determine
at each stage whether conditions had been met that would allow the gradual lifting of specific aspects of the embargo.¶ There
is, of course,
of internationally supervised electoral process, especially in Latin America. The first
Bush administration supported a similar process in Nicaragua in 1989 and 1990, which culminated in the
election of Violeta Chamorro as president.¶ But, some may ask, why not just wait and see what Castro's successor does before
making such an offer? Because it's important for the Cuban people and the world to see that the United States
seeks only their freedom and prosperity and is prepared to deal with any government legitimately
chosen by a fair vote. It is perhaps even more important that Cuba's new ruler be confronted publicly by a clear choice: Continue a
ample precedent for this kind
dictatorship and prolong the Cuban people's suffering, or hold free and fair elections and open the door to a new era of hope and prosperity for
Cuba. If the Cuban leadership makes the wrong choice, it alone will be responsible for what follows.¶ Some Americans who have long opposed
the embargo may recommend lifting it immediately and unconditionally. Some European nations seem eager to seize on the changing of the
guard in Cuba to normalize relations. But to do so without demanding irreversible reforms first would be a tragic error. At this stage in history,
we ought to know that merely
opening up trade and relations with Cuba will not guarantee that it will become
democratic.¶ On the contrary, Cuba's next dictator will try to control and manipulate the flow of foreign investment and the behavior of
foreign visitors, just as China's, Russia's and Venezuela's leaders do. Increased tourism will not change Cuba any more than
it has changed China. And anyone who counts on American corporations to favor democracy over profits in Cuba obviously has not
been paying attention to American corporate practices in foreign lands over the past 30 years. To lift the embargo and normalize
relations without a demand for internationally supervised democratic elections could well consign the
Cuban people to another decade or more of tyranny and squander a rare chance to help them change their future.¶
109
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
**Gender K**
The inherently gendered embargo entrenches the masculinity of US foreign policy – through
our “exceptionalist” discursive interactions with Cuba the state engages in active feminization
of the Cuban population.
McNeil, C. , 2011-03-16 "Ontological Security and Emotion in US-Cuba Relations" Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the International Studies Association Annual Conference "Global Governance:
Political Authority in Transition", Le Centre Sheraton Montreal Hotel, MONTREAL, QUEBEC,
CANADA Online<PDF>. 2013-06-24 from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p498959_index.html, RJ
Ontologically Securing the ‘Exceptional’ Self: Pity, Humiliation and Ingratitude in US-Cuban Relations An understanding of this history is essential if we
are to fully appreciate the sociological and emotive dynamics present within contemporary US-Cuban relations. I
argue that the US
intervention in the Cuban War of Independence was informed by a sense of American exceptionalism
tethered to a feeling of pity toward the Cuban people. A key element in American national identity is
characterized by the term ‘exceptionalism’. While a number of factors contributed to the development of this particular sense of self,
it can be characterized as involving: first, a belief that the United States political and economic system is superior to
all other states; second, a belief that the United States is morally superior to all other states; third,
because of its exceptional character the United States enjoys a position of privilege and leadership
internationally; finally, given its exceptional character, the US has special rights and obligations
geopolitically – and especially within its near abroad (Wylie 2010). This self narrative is reflected in US foreign policy as a
legitimating assumption framing US agency (its assumed ends, and the appropriateness of its means) – regardless if the actual ends sought are far
from altruistic or ethically justifiable given the context. The United States has for much of the past two hundred years enjoyed a robust trading
relationship with Cuba. When the United States annexed Florida in 1819, there was an expressed desire to purchase Cuba along with it (Dominguez &
Prevost 2008). This was illustrated by President James Monroe’s Ripe Fruit Doctrine of 1823, which encouraged other presidents to try and pry the
colony away from Spain. This desire remained unfulfilled as Spain proved unwilling to part with its last major possession in the Americas, and the
United States lacked the military and economic power to challenge the United Kingdom or France. By the late nineteenth century the US economy had
This provided the US
with its opportunity to realize its goal of separating Cuba from Spain and thereby bringing it within the
US orbit. The immediate pretext for intervention was the detonation of the warship USS Maine in Havana harbour. Washington blamed Madrid for
the explosion and hostilities between the US and Spain commenced. The intervention was decisive in ending Spanish rule in
Cuba, however it also robbed Cubans who had supported the cause of ‘autonomia’ of the sovereignty
they desired. As Damian J. Fernandez stresses, “Dedication to Cuba libre was more than a duty to a cause, it was a devotion to a faith. And to
the faithful, no loss was too much…” (2000: 46). This is particularly true of the Afro-Cubans who fought for
independence only to see themselves hopelessly marginalized after the success of the US intervention.
The American intervention in Cuba frames Cubans as pitiable objects and in this way allows for the
performance of US exceptionalism. The pity embedded within the exceptionalistic identity performed
via US policy encourages a presumption that the pitied object should be grateful; as we have already noted, given
that the object is pitiable, it is a priori assumed to be incapable of caring for itself. Thus, the relationship established in 1898
between the US government and Cuba was inclined toward paternalistic intervention because of the
emotions embedded within it. Exceptionalism inclined US policy toward viewing Cubans as pitiable (other
factors were also at play: racism, sexism) and also elicited a presumption of Cuban gratitude. While many Cubans were
become the largest in the world and Spain was embroiled in fighting a war against Cubans seeking independence.
certainly happy to see the end of colonial rule, they were quickly disillusioned with the extent to which their independence was compromised by US
policy. Thus,
the relationship begun in 1898 was shaped by emotion and identity in problematic ways. It
meant that there was a chasm between the US perception of the relationship and the perception of it by
large segments of the Cuban population. From that perspective, the US intervention and its aftermath was an
acute humiliation – one which engendered profound mistrust of the US-Cuban relationship (Dominguez &
Prevost 2008: 3). The US considered annexation, but instead opted for the right to intervene in Cuban domestic affairs. The Cuban people are
viewed as children or are feminized in US policy discourse as being in need of protection and tutelage
(even as subhuman). The lack of real empathy and sympathy therefore existed in the relationship from 1898. Viewed from this lens, it is unsurprising
that the Revolution was informed by the symbolism of Jose Marti and as a means to redress the inequity, racism and dictatorial quality of the Batista
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
110
era Cuban political economy. Indeed by the 1950s, Cuba
was dominated by US capital and was torn by stark disparities
in the distribution of wealth (Blight & Brenner 2002: 172-175). Moreover, the Revolution represented a demand for respect – a
renunciation of the humiliations experienced since the Spanish war ended by changing the nature of the relationship between the Cuban state, its
people and the rest of the world. The
degree to which the Cuban state evidenced ontological insecurity is
illustrated during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba’s adamant refusal to compromise its sovereignty
despite the risk of nuclear annihilation illustrates how distrustful relationships and the need for
ontological security can incline states toward policies which seem irrational if viewed from a different
perspective. James Blight and Philip Brenner argue in relation to the Cuban response to the missile crisis that: … Cubans seem almost to be from
some other planet. Their attitudes and behaviour seem to make no sense, because as the superpowers tried desperately to defuse the crisis, the
Cubans resented the very idea of a resolution to the crisis on the terms agreed to in Moscow and Washington. More, they did what they could to
prolong the crisis and seemed unworried about increasing the risk of a war that might have destroyed human civilization (2002: 188). They continue
that this all or nothing perspective in relation to Cuban sovereignty is still evident today.
The achievement of the Revolution
therefore calls into question the emotional and exceptionalistic identity based US narrative; it
represents an affront to US dignity in that states’ near abroad; understood from the perspective of US
policymakers it is a monumental act of ingratitude and its success is an abject humiliation for US Latin
American policy writ large and for the United States more generally. The behavioural (policy) response follows logically:
disbelief and denial, followed by punishment via embargo. The embargo functions as a tool to discipline the Revolutionary
government by attempting to deny it the respect it demands as a sovereign state. The bifurcation of the
Cuban state from the Cuban people follows logically as well; the state apparatus and the Castro brothers
in particular, are framed as malevolent dictators and their political system beyond the pale and self
evidently inferior to the American system. The Cuban people however are still viewed with pity and in
this way are assumed to be victimized by a governmental apparatus designed to oppress them. Again,
US exceptionalism is sustained within this framework as are the emotional dynamics informing it. Key to
this is that US policy avoids humiliation by refusing to acknowledge the reality of the Revolution and
legitimacy the Revolution may have in Cuba (and Latin America). We see echoes of this dynamic today in Washington’s refusal to
appreciate the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America. The embargo here reveals itself as a tool of discipline designed to rob Cuba of respect by
refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Revolution. It also reveals itself as a means to avoid the anxiety of ontological insecurity and the
humiliation which would accompany it. Performed
exceptionalism and avoidance of ontological insecurity are in
evidence in the Cuba Democracy Act of 1992 – specifically the two track approach it embraced. The Track I
CDA legislation affected Canada and other states trading with Cuba by preventing subsidiaries of US corporations from trading with Cuba, and by
preventing foreign ships docking in Cuban ports from unloading or loading cargo in US ports for six months (CDA 1992: Sec. 6005). This extraterritorial component to the CDA angered US trading partners by challenging the primacy of both domestic law and policy autonomy in those countries
(Morley & McGillion 2002, p.45). The Track I components of the Act are meant to hasten the demise of the current government and to bring about a
quick transition to the US government’s preferred form of political system for the island. The CDA is quite clear in this regard, stating that the President
may waive the sanctions and take steps toward ending the embargo if he determines that the Cuban state has met the standards for democratic
transition set forth in the Act (CDA 1992: Sec. 6006). Amongst these include the holding of “free and fair elections under internationally recognized
observers … [and movement] toward establishing a free market economic system” (CDA 1992: Sec. 6006). Track II diplomacy, by way of contrast,
involves the “unofficial interactions between people from countries or groups in conflict for the purpose of promoting peaceful solutions to international
disagreements” (Blight & Brenner 2002, p.170). Although the CDA’s provisions for increased interpersonal interaction between Americans and Cubans
are framed in humanitarian terms, these Track II provisions also embody a belief in the potential for people-to-people contacts to develop a Cuban civil
society capable of challenging and ultimately overturning the Cuban government (CDA 1992: Section 6004, g). William LeoGrande (2005, p.37) points
to this element of the CDA when he argues “from the outset, Washington conceived of these contacts as a way to subvert the Cuban government. That
was how the policy was promoted when first introduced by Congressman Robert Torricelli, author of the CDA ”.
Track I and Track II
operate under the overarching assumption that the Cuban state has no legitimacy. Thus Track 1 seeks to
punish the Cuban government to hasten its demise, while Track II seeks to forge interactions between
Americans and Cubans with the sole purpose of aiding those assumed to be oppressed by the system.
Again we see that US policy separates the government from the Cuban people and in so doing avoids
having to acknowledge the successes of the Revolution and the pride many Cubans feel in those
achievements (Dominguez & Prevost 2008). It also reinforces the distrust the Cuban state has of US policy.
Interestingly however William LeoGrande points to one unanticipated outcome of President Clinton’s decision to allow travel to Cuba for religious,
humanitarian and people-to-people contacts: the emergence of a constituency in the United States advocating a change in the hard-line US policy
(2005, p.27). Here we see the potential for learning, empathy and even sympathy when interactions involve a certain amount of trust. We can not
assume however that this will always be the case, as the rise in Canadian tourism to Cuba has also contributed to a hardening of negative views of the
Cuban political system (Nicol 2009). Conclusion The point of this discussion is to illustrate that while the policy of embargo has been a failure, and has
damaged US relations throughout Latin America, it is only irrational when viewed in certain ways. Here we can see that the ongoing commitment to
punishing the revolutionary government via embargo is irrational when viewed in terms of the stated end: the radical transformation of the Cuban
political economy; however, viewed from the vantage point of ontological security – and within the broader context of the history of US-Cuban relations
– we can see that the practice and discourse of US policy reinforces certain aspects of American self-hood. By
maintaining the embargo,
US policy avoids accepting the humiliation of the revolution and politicizing elements of US identity –
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013
111
most prominently its sense of its own ‘exceptionalism’. Furthermore, it is also clear that there is much,
much more at stake for the Cuban government and people in this maladaptive and emotionally wrought
relationship. It is an untenable stretch of logic to argue that US identity will be fundamentally compromised by a normalization of relations with
Cuba on terms acceptable to the Cuban government. The converse however is not true. The United States is Cuba’s significant other; since 1898 it has
played a prominent role in the island state’s development, and since 1959 that role has been profoundly and intentionally malignant. As I have argued elsewhere
(McNeil 2010), if the universal applicability of the US political system and its attendant values are self evidently superior, than there is little risk involved for the US
government in normalizing relations. Indeed, from this vantage point it could be argued that the policy of embargo has actually worked against the spread of US
values by effectively keeping US capital and citizens out of Cuba. It has also given the Cuban government a pretext in justifying some of its more reactionary policies.
The above analysis should also give us pause when considering the future trajectory of the US-Cuban relations. Even if we assume that the current US
administration is more disposed to normalization than the previous administration, it is still subject to the same political liabilities which normalization
would inevitably entail. Any attempt to normalize without qualifications (ie: in a way which would satisfy the Cuban government) can be used against
the administration as both un-American, immoral (the former implying the later) and a national humiliation. It is difficult to envision any politician who
would actively consider normalizing given that there is little immediate benefit and tremendous liabilities.