1AC
Plan
The United States Federal Government should permit its citizens to travel to Cuba.
Transition
Advantage One: Cuban Transition
Changes are inevitable in Cuba – lifting the travel ban makes the transition safe and democratic
Cuba Study Group, non-profit and non-partisan organization studying Cuba, 2008
(“Lifting Restrictions on Travel and Remittances to Cuba: A Case for Unilateral Action,”
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7e4643ab-af81-4a8c-9872-5ab497a76617)
Isolation is a two-way street. While aiming to isolate Cuba’s government, the United States has simultaneously isolated
itself— not only from the international community, but also from the complex realities at play in Cuba today. By limiting human interaction, the
United States hinders its ability, and that of the émigré community, to play a constructive role in Cuba’s inevitable future
processes of change. ¶ Both U.S. and Cuban-American perceptions of life in Cuba today can be seriously distorted and time-delayed. Human
isolation impedes the all-important process of building personal relationships with individuals who, in varying
capacities, will impact Cuba’s future. ¶ Neither the United States nor the Cuban-American community should realistically expect to be absent and
detached from Cuba’s transitional processes and then simply “parachute in” when the transition is complete and consolidated. To accept this paradigm is to
belittle the vast and positive contributions American society could provide to Cuba today.¶ Historical Precedents¶ Since the Berlin Wall’s fall, approximately 28
nations have undergone transitions from communist regimes. While some of these transitions have been more
successful than others in establishing progressive democracies, all have produced significantly better economic
results and living conditions than their predecessor communist regimes. Nowhere in any of these transitions did
human isolation from the free world—specifically in the form of travel and remittance restrictions—constitute an
element of pre-transition policies by relevant Western nations, including the United States. In fact, a deeper analysis of
these transitions reveals an extraordinary correlation between the degree of pre-transition openness and the degree of democratic success.13¶ Contact
Strengthens Civil Society ¶ There
is also a significant correlation between the degree of democratic success achieved after
a transition and the strength of civil society and opposition groups on the ground.14 To promote the development of a strong,
independent, civil society along with pro-democracy movements, international contacts and resources are essential . The trajectories of
previous transitions from communism provide ample evidence of this fact. In those countries that underwent the most successful
democratic transitions, the United States and other relevant Western nations actively promoted frequent
exchanges among civil society organizations. In several cases, the impact of such deliberate and continual programs of exchange and contact
was instrumental in strengthening internal opposition movements.¶ The United States currently maintains several programs through the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) and other agencies to support the growth of civil society and pro-democracy movements within Cuba, either through direct
contact or the work of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with ties to Cuban activists. Recently, such programs have come under fire, because large
portions of the funds distributed to nongovernmental organizations are allocated to overhead and administrative costs, and only small amounts actually reach
Cuba.15¶ Leaving aside the accuracy of these critiques, those who support such a “regulated” or “micro-managed” approach to civil society engagement have
failed to recognize a more fundamental reality. Political dissent within the countries that have transitioned from communism was much broader than the scope
of the visible pro-democracy or civil rights movement itself. Intellectuals, labor activists, academics, artists, civil society organizations and even regime elements
all played major roles in generating pressure for change. Civil society must therefore be conceived in broad terms, and U.S.
policy should promote
exchange at all levels of Cuban civil society. By deregulating and privatizing such exchanges, free travel can help
expand their depth and reach. ¶ Fluid and unregulated contacts with the outside world can help Cubans gain access to greater information and
resources. Contact also helps strengthen personal bonds and trusting relationships, and it increases coordination among dissident groups. Finally, greater
exchange may provide ample opportunities to infuse private and government resources to directly support civil society activists’ efforts. ¶ Anecdotal evidence
from Cuba suggests that these arguments are well-founded. In the late 1970s, the return of exile family members to Cuba produced enormously positive results.
Returning Cuban Americans helped to lessen fears of change and counter the regime’s propaganda, which vilified those who had left. More recently, the period
between 1999 and 2004—when the U.S. authorized extensive, purposeful travel to Cuba by CubanAmericans and other U.S. persons—contributed to a
significant expansion of Cuba’s civil society and internal opposition.¶ In
many ways, current U.S. policies of human isolation may
actually hinder the development of transitional processes in Cuba. Going forward, mutual exchange, dialogue and
collaboration are far more effective strategies than the one-dimensional information the United States transmits
to Cuba under current limitations.
Contact with Americans speeds democratization
Amanpour and Neil 09 (Christiane and Morgan, CNN’s chief international correspondent and has worked for 60 Minutes since
1998, Press Officer at Organization of American States and Havana Bureau Chief at CNN, November 23, 2009 “Cuba's
Relationship with the U.S. and the World”, http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ )
Now, U.S. President Barack Obama has offered Sanchez support, answering questions she'd e-mailed him. "The
government and people of the
United States join all of you in looking forward to the day all Cubans can freely express themselves in public without fear
and without reprisals." This Cuban-American lawmaker said Sanchez's beating showed the folly of lifting a ban on U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba. REP.
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R), FLORIDA: The majority of Europeans and tourists from around the world have been going to Cuba for rum, for music, for sex, for
cigars, for sun for years. Have they brought about democratic reform and change? NEILL: But Sanchez
herself wants the ban lifted. She says,
"Having U.S. visitors in Cuba would speed democratization." Isolate and punish or engage and reward? They've been the two
fundamental strategies for those seeking change in Cuba. The U.S. has tried to isolate and punish Cuba for its authoritarian
government since the early 1960s. President Barack Obama has vowed he'll maintain the U.S. embargo, but also says he seeks a fresh start with
Cuba. He's removed restrictions on Cuban-Americans traveling and sending remittances to the island and recently sent an envoy for talks with Cuban officials.
But as long as the U.S. embargo remains in place, Washington stands nearly alone. The U.S. policy is condemned annually by nearly all the members of the
United Nations, with only Israel and Palau backing the U.S. in this year's anti-embargo vote. In Cuba, meantime, laws like the one against what it calls
"dangerousness" mean dissidents can be arrested without having committed any crime. And three years after President Raul Castro took over, when it comes to
human rights, in Cuba, no cambia nada. Morgan Neill, CNN, London. AMANPOUR: We asked the Cuban government representatives to join us, but they all told
us they were not available at this time. We hope that they will in the future. But right now, we're joined here in our studio by Jose Miguel Vivanco, the director
of Human Rights Watch, America's division, which just published a highly critical report on Cuba, and from Washington, U.S. Congressman Howard Berman, who
joined us from Capitol Hill and who's been holding those hearings. Welcome back, gentlemen, to our program. Congressman Berman, if I could ask you, what
precisely is the point of your hearings? What can you achieve? REP. HOWARD BERMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: I'd like the Congress to re- examine the ban on travel.
Americans can go to a country, Iran, that is developing a nuclear weapon, that is the leading state sponsor of
terrorism. During the Cold War, we never restricted the ability of Americans to go to the Soviet Union or other
Soviet bloc countries. I think our current policy interferes with what I consider a fundamental American right, the
right of American citizens to travel . And... AMANPOUR: And just to be clear, Congressman, if you lift the ban on Americans traveling, in a sense,
de facto, the embargo collapses, correct? BERMAN: No. I think the embargo and the travel ban are two very separate issues . There are
all kinds of items -- we have an embargo on Iran right now. We don't have a travel ban on Americans going to Iran.
AMANPOUR: OK. BERMAN: They're two severable issues. AMANPOUR: All right. Let me turn to Jose Miguel Vivanco, who has just come back from Cuba. You've
written a highly critical report for Human Rights Watch called "New Castro, Same Cuba." What did you find there? JOSE MIGUEL VIVANCO, HUMAN RIGHTS
WATCH: Well, first of all, I didn't go to Cuba for this research. One of our researchers... AMANPOUR: So it was done without the permission of the Cuban
government? VIVANCO: Without permission, but a couple of our experts managed to enter into the island and conduct investigations there by meeting with
political prisoners, former political prisoners, relatives of victims, and so forth. AMANPOUR: And what did you find principally? VIVANCO: But the conclusion is
that, under Raul Castro, essentially he's -- the same type of repression that has been ongoing in Cuba for 50 years under Fidel Castro is -- is very much in place.
AMANPOUR: What specifically? VIVANCO: Specifically, going after anybody who disagrees with the system. You know, in
other words, you have a
system, a totalitarian system that negates the exercise of fundamental freedoms and rights, no -- no free speech,
no right to association , no right to -- you know, to create a union, labor rights, no political rights to elect, you know, anybody who is not endorsed or
official candidate of a... AMANPOUR: So you -- do you -- do you believe that the travel ban should be lifted, for instance, as Congressman Berman says?
VIVANCO: Absolutely. And we submitted, actually, a letter to the committee of Chairman Berman requesting and supporting to -- to release the travel ban.
Essentially, our -- our position is: Human
rights are still extremely poor. You know, Raul Castro's record is characterized by massive and gross
violations of human rights. The best way to address this problem is by not only lifting the travel ban, but also replacing
the embargo with effective pressure that could be exercised essentially multilaterally... AMANPOUR: Let me play this sound
bite from Yoani Sanchez, the notorious now blogger there. YOANI SANCHEZ, CUBAN BLOGGER (through translator): They threw me in the back seat of the car
upside down. Then, a very strong man placed his knee on my chest and I couldn't breathe. The men in the front seat was hitting me in my back and pulling my
hair. He said, "Yoani, this is it." And at that moment, I thought I was going to die. AMANPOUR: Congressman Berman, does that kind of -- of testimony from
inside Cuba, what you've just heard about the Human Rights Watch rather scathing report, does that make it more difficult for you, as you're holding these
hearings? BERMAN: I think it makes our case more compelling. AMANPOUR: How's that? BERMAN: Because the
Cuban dissidents, the people, the
brave people in Cuba who are standing up to this despotic regime, they want more contact with Americans . They
want Americans coming to Cuba. They believe this will help bring down the wall that separates the government
from its own people. Our whole history with Eastern Europe and Russia, Americans traveling there meant
American contact with dissidents, promoting American values, bringing to the people of these countries , as they
would to the Cuban people, the
story of what -- of what freedom and liberty are really like. So my argument isn't just based on the
think a more effective strategy
than the one we've tried for -- for, really, 40 years, 40 or 50 years, without any positive effect, we could do more
by letting Americans go to Cuba. AMANPOUR: Congressman Berman, as chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, what do you see
happening in your committee in Congress regarding the Cuban issue? Is sentiment shifting away from this -- this embargo? Certainly , Cubanright of Americans to travel; it's because I am thoroughly opposed to the policies of -- of the Castro brothers. And I
Americans by a vast majority want the embargo lifted and certainly the travel ban lifted.
Unique cultural ties and purposeful travel make American visitors key
Cuba Study Group, non-profit and non-partisan organization studying Cuba, 2008
(“Lifting Restrictions on Travel and Remittances to Cuba: A Case for Unilateral Action,”
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7e4643ab-af81-4a8c-9872-5ab497a76617)
A common argument in favor of maintaining current travel restrictions is that the free travel of citizens from other
countries to Cuba (from European countries to Canada and beyond, largely in the form of tourism) has failed to produce change on the
island. It is unrealistic, critics argue, to expect U.S. travel/tourism to have a different effect.¶ Such arguments are misguided for several reasons. First, they
ignore the fact that the United States is Cuba’s most relevant Western nation and home to the largest community
of Cuban nationals outside the island. The United States also serves as a traditional source of fear in Cuban society and is often the scapegoat for
Cuba’s own foreign and domestic policy failures. Therefore, it is disingenuous to place the potential impact of American travel to
and contact with Cuba on par with that of Canada or Europe. Second, it is unclear whether or not American tourists
would flock en masse to Cuba beyond the short term, unless Cuban authorities dramatically improve the quality of
hotels, resorts, restaurants and other accommodations on the island. Because of this fact, a large portion of American
travel—a larger portion, in fact, than travel from Europe or Canada—is likely to be “purposeful” in nature. Third, we believe that American
travelers in Cuba can promote positive exchanges of information and ideas. In our view, closely regulating which
travel is purposeful and which is not wastes government resources and acts to deter the scope of those types of
exchanges that are most valuable to U.S. interests.
A democratic future for Cuba is key to regional and global democracy
Rice, professor at Stanford and former U.S. Secretary of State, July/August 2008
(Condoleezza, “Rethinking the National Interest,” Foreign Affairs,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/?view=article&id=25756)
As important as relations are with Russia and China, it is our work with our allies, those with whom we share values,
that is transforming international politics -- for this work presents an opportunity to expand the ranks of wellgoverned, law-abiding democratic states in our world and to defeat challenges to this vision of international
order. Cooperation with our democratic allies, therefore, should not be judged simply by how we relate to one
another. It should be judged by the work we do together to defeat terrorism and extremism, meet global challenges,
defend human rights and dignity, and support new democracies.
In the Americas, this has meant strengthening our ties with strategic democracies such as Canada, Mexico,
Colombia, Brazil, and Chile in order to further the democratic development of our hemisphere. Together, we have
supported struggling states, such as Haiti, in locking in their transitions to democracy and security. Together, we are
defending ourselves against drug traffickers, criminal gangs, and the few autocratic outliers in our democratic
hemisphere. The region still faces challenges, including Cuba's coming transition and the need to support,
unequivocally, the Cuban people's right to a democratic future. There is no doubt that centuries-old suspicions of
the United States persist in the region. But we have begun to write a new narrative that speaks not only to
macroeconomic development and trade but also to the need for democratic leaders to address problems of social
justice and inequality.
Global democracy solves extinction
Diamond 95 - Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, December 1995, Promoting Democracy in
the 1990s, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm
OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and
decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread.
The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made
common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic
ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the
global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security
are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality,
accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this
century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to
war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their
leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less
likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build
weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable,
open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for
investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who
organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties
since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements
in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights,
and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international
security and prosperity can be built.
Travel avoids a violent transition—
Cuba Study Group, non-profit and non-partisan organization studying Cuba, 2008
(“Lifting Restrictions on Travel and Remittances to Cuba: A Case for Unilateral Action,”
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7e4643ab-af81-4a8c-9872-5ab497a76617)
Allowing Cuban émigrés to freely visit family members and friends would help reunite families and rekindle friendships. Strengthening
such
relationships encourages a process of national reconciliation, which is necessary for a deeply divided nation. After
nearly 50 years of division, political hatred and government brutality, human ties that are built step by step on
the ground will be essential to any peaceful transition to democracy. In addition, contact between U.S. persons and Cubans on the
island would help dispel years of negative regime propaganda aimed at vilifying the United States and the Cuban-American community as well as increasing the
Cuban people’s fear of change.¶ Research conducted by Freedom House conclusively shows that the
most important factor in a democratic
transition’s success is the absence of violence during the transitional process. Cuba’s own history with political
violence makes it all the more necessary for processes of national reconciliation to take hold sooner rather than
later. If Cuba ever peacefully confronts some of its more complex transitional justice issues (property rights, building a new
democracy, confronting the legacy of human rights abuses, etc.), individual citizens must first be able to address their grievances
with one another and build trust. Travel acts as a key vehicle to facilitate such crucial people-to-people
exchanges.
Engagement creates a goldilocks transition – avoiding civil war, drug trafficking, and organized
crime. Conflict escalates and draws in the U.S. –
The Economist 3/24/2012
(“On the road towards capitalism,” http://www.economist.com/node/21551047)
IN 1998 Pope John Paul II visited Cuba, prompting outsiders to await a political opening of the kind that brought
down communism in his native Poland. Sadly, even two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Cuba remains one
of the handful of countries around the world where communism lives on. Illness forced Fidel Castro to step down in
2006, but his slightly younger brother, Raúl, is in charge, flanked by a cohort of elderly Stalinists. When Pope
Benedict XVI visits the island next week, expectations will be more muted.
Yet a momentous change has begun in Cuba in the meantime. The country has started on the road towards
capitalism; and that will have big implications for the United States and the rest of Latin America.
The journey, as our special report this week explains, will be painfully slow. No active dissent from one-party rule is
allowed: dozens of opponents of the regime have been arrested ahead of the pope's visit. Sceptics will note that
Fidel Castro opened up the island's economy a little in the early 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
withdrawal of its subsidies, only to stop when he found a new benefactor in Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.
But this time seems different. Raúl Castro, though no democrat, is clearly a more practical man than his brother. He
recognises that time is running out for his island. The population is shrinking and ageing, the economy is hopelessly
unproductive and the state can no longer pay for the paternalist social services of which Cuba was once proud.
Meanwhile, Mr Chávez's health and his hold on power are uncertain.
The changes Raúl Castro has introduced are almost certainly irreversible. Much of Cuban farming is, in effect, being
privatised. In all, around a third of the country's workforce is due to transfer by 2015 to an incipient private sector.
As well as employing others, Cubans can now buy and sell houses and cars, even as the number of mobile phones
and computers on the island is rising fast. This looks like a turning point similar to Deng Xiaoping's revolution in
China.
No man is an island
Reform is moving slowly partly because Mr Castro is ambivalent. He insists, as Deng did, that his aim is to sustain,
not dismantle, the Communist Party's control. There are also obstacles to reform. Bureaucrats fear losing power and
perks; ordinary people fear rising prices. Popular opposition forced Mr Castro to drop a proposal to scrap the ration
books that give all Cubans some subsidised food.
But going too slowly is now as dangerous for the Castros as going too fast. Cubans are unhappy. Their schools and
hospitals are not as good as they were. Inequalities of income now exist alongside those of power. There is much
resentment of the opportunities afforded to insiders and denied to everyone else. Having raised Cubans' hopes of
change, Raúl Castro urgently needs to create some winners from the reforms—and that means pushing ahead. Small
businesses must be allowed to become medium and large ones. Foreign investment should be welcomed. And the
ration books should go, with subsidies targeted at the poor.
The other reason for urgency is that the Castros have failed to groom a successor. When Fidel, who is 85, dies,
change will doubtless accelerate, but the regime will not fall apart: Raúl is the important one now. Yet whoever
takes over from him—and a partial handover may start as soon as 2013—will not have the brothers' revolutionary
credentials. Cubans will judge their next leader strictly on his or her present performance. The longer Raúl tarries
over placing the economy on a sustainable footing, the greater the risk that a post-Castro leadership will be swept
away on a tide of popular anger.
Time for America to get over its 50-year tantrum
Few will mourn this regime. But there are several reasons for all sides to prefer an orderly transition to capitalism
and democracy in Cuba. The sudden collapse of communism risks civil war, or at least the danger that Cuba's
formidable security and intelligence agencies will become hired guns at the service of drug trafficking and
organised crime. The presence of 1.2m Cuban-Americans in south Florida makes it likely that the U nited S tates
would get dragged into any conflict.
Unfortunately American policy towards Cuba resembles a 50-year tantrum, rather than a coherent plan for
encouraging a transition to democracy. The hurt suffered by the exiles was indeed great, but it should not supersede
the national interest of the United States. The 50-year-old economic embargo of the island, which this newspaper
has long opposed, has done more than anything else to keep the Castros in power. The abiding trope of the
brothers' propaganda is the need for “unity” against the aggressor over the water—the official justification for the
lack of political freedom and for one-party rule.
Cuban instability and drug trade result in terrorism
Ashby, ‘3/29 [3/29/13, Dr. Timothy Ashby is Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
“Preserving Stability in Cuba After Normalizing Relations with the United States – The Importance of Trading with
State-Owned Enterprises”, http://www.coha.org/preserving-stability-in-cuba-timothy-ashby/]
Cuba under Raúl Castro has entered a new period of economic, social, and political transformation. Reforms
instituted within the past few years have brought the expansion of private sector entrepreneurial activity, including
lifting restrictions on the sales of residential real estate, automobiles, and electronic goods. Additional reforms
included, more than a million hectares of idle land has been leased to private farmers, where citizens have been
granted permission to stay in hotels previously reserved for tourists, and freedom being granted for most Cubans to
travel abroad. Stating that it was time for the “gradual transfer” of “key roles to new generations,” President Raúl
Castro announced that he will retire by 2018, and named as his possible successor a man who was not even born at
the time of the Cuban Revolution. [1] The twilight of the Castro era presents challenges and opportunities for U.S.
policy makers. Normalization of relations is inevitable, regardless of timing, yet external and internal factors may
accelerate or retard the process. The death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is likely to undermine the already
dysfunctional Cuban economy, if it leads to reductions in oil imports and other forms of aid. This could bring social
chaos, especially among the island’s disaffected youth. Such an outcome would generate adverse consequences for
U.S. national and regional security. To maintain Cuba’s social and economic stability while reforms are maturing, the
United States must throw itself open to unrestricted bilateral trade with all Cuban enterprises, both private and
state-owned. The collapse of Cuba’s tottering economy could seismically impact the United States and
neighboring countries. It certainly did during the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, precipitated by a downturn in the Cuban economy which led
to tensions on the island. Over 125,000 Cuban refugees landed in the Miami area, including 31,000 criminals and mental patients. Today, the
United States defines its national security interests regarding Cuba as follows: • Avoid one or more mass migrations; •
Prevent Cuba from becoming another porous border that allows continuous large-scale migration to the hemisphere; • Prevent Cuba from becoming
a major source or transshipment point for the illegal drug trade; • Avoid Cuba becoming a state with ungoverned
spaces that could provide a platform for terrorists and others wishing to harm the United States . [2] All of these
national security threats are directly related to economic and social conditions within Cuba.
Terrorism causes extinction
Ayson 10 [Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New
Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington,“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,”
Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via
InformaWorld]
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst
of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly
existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the
sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into
insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as
long as
the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always
the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—
a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable . It is
just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading
to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them . In this context, today’s and
tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who
were seen as raising the
risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers
started by third parties. These risks were
considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of
imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in
the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could
plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of
terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well.
Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile
material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The
correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while
the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and
collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some
indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if
the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American
officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state
possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington
would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would
Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against
a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded
between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst ? Of course, the chances of this
occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were
confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too:
should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow
and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack?
Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and
nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and /or China . For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate
aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear
arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that
Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force)
against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow , although it must be admitted that any preemption
would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington
might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist
group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might
interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of
influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the
main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen
insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that
might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how
other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a
nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside
the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases
than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some
reason, Washington
found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it
also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a
major exchange. If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China
held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about
their culpability? If
Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and
China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange . They might surmise, for example, that while the act of
nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one
thing for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the
international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options would lie open to
them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by
states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative
to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an
arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two
most important trustees of the non-use taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces
very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How
would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of
influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the
nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In
the charged
atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from
other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do” immediately
springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for
the terrorists. This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint. ¶ Nuclear Terrorism Against Smaller Nuclear Powers¶ There is also the
question of what lesser powers in the international system might do in response to a terrorist attack on a friendly or allied country: what they might do in
sympathy¶ or support of their attacked colleague. Moreover, if these countries are themselves nuclear ¶ armed, additional possibilities for a wider catastrophe
may lie here as well. For example,¶ if in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, a nuclear armed ally such¶ as Israel might possess special
information about the group believed to be responsible and¶ be willing and able to take the action required to punish that group. If its action involved ¶ threats
of the use of nuclear force, or the use of nuclear force itself (perhaps against a¶ country Israel believed to be harboring the nuclear terrorists), how might other
nuclear¶ armed countries react? Might some other nuclear powers demand that the United States¶ rein in its friend, and suggest a catastrophic outcome should
this restraint not take place?¶ Or would they wait long enough to ask the question?¶ Alternatively, what if some states used the nuclear terrorist attack on
another country to justify a major—and perhaps even nuclear—attack on other terrorist groups on the grounds¶ that it was now clear that it was too dangerous
to allow these groups to exist when they¶ might very well also be planning similar nuclear action? (Just as Al Qaeda’s attacks on 9/11¶ raised some of the threat
assessments of other terrorist groups, the same and more might¶ occur if any terrorist group had used a nuclear weapon,) If a nuclear armed third party took¶
things into its own hands and decided that the time for decisive action had now come, how¶ might this action affect the nuclear peace between states?¶ But it
needs to be realized that a catalytic exchange is not only possible if the terrorists ¶ have exploded a nuclear device on one of the established nuclear weapons
states, including¶ and especially the United States. A catalytic nuclear war might also be initiated by a nuclear¶ terrorist attack on a country that possesses a
nuclear arsenal of a more modest scale, and¶ which is geographically much closer to the group concerned. For example, if a South Asian terrorist group
exploded a nuclear device in India, it is very difficult to see how major¶ suspicions could not be raised in that country (and elsewhere) that Pakistan was
somehow¶ involved—either as a direct aider and abetter of the terrorists (including the provision of¶ the bomb to them) or as at the very least a passive and
careless harborer of the groups¶ perpetrating the act. In a study that seeks to reduce overall fears of nuclear terrorism, Frost¶ nonetheless observes that
one of the nuclear powers in South Asia was “thought to be ¶ behind a ‘terrorist’
nuclear
if
attack in the region, the
risks of the incident escalating into a full nuclear exchange would be high .”¶ 43¶ Kapur is equally definite on this score, observing
that¶ “if a nuclear detonation occurred within India, the attack would be undoubtedly blamed on¶ Pakistan, with potentially catastrophic results.”¶ 44
Cuban civil war causes Caribbean instability and terrorism, democratic backsliding, and refugee
flows
Gorrell 5 (Tim, Lieutenant Colonel, “CUBA: THE NEXT UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED STRATEGIC CRISIS?” 3/18,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433074)
Regardless of the succession, under the current U.S. policy, Cuba’s problems of a post Castro transformation only worsen. In
addition to Cubans on the island, there will be those in exile who will return claiming authority. And there are remnants
of the dissident community within Cuba who will attempt to exercise similar authority. A power vacuum or absence of
order will create the conditions for instability and civil war . Whether Raul or another successor from within the current
government can hold power is debatable. However, that individual will nonetheless extend the current policies for an indefinite period,
which will only compound the Cuban situation. When Cuba finally collapses anarchy is a strong possibility if the U.S.
maintains the “wait and see” approach. The U.S. then must deal with an unstable country 90 miles off its coast. In the midst of this chaos,
thousands will flee the island. During the Mariel boatlift in 1980 125,000 fled the island.26 Many were criminals; this time the number could be
several hundred thousand flee ing to the U.S., creating a refugee crisis.¶ Equally important, by adhering to a negative containment policy,
the U.S. may be creating its next series of transnational criminal problems. Cuba is along the axis of the drug-trafficking flow into the U.S.
from Columbia. The Castro government as a matter of policy does not support the drug trade. In fact, Cuba’s actions have shown that its stance on drugs
is more than hollow rhetoric as indicated by its increasing seizure of drugs – 7.5 tons in 1995, 8.8 tons in 1999, and 13 tons in 2000.27
While there may be individuals within the government and outside who engage in drug trafficking and a percentage of drugs entering the U.S. may pass through Cuba, the Cuban
government is not the path of least resistance for the flow of drugs. If there were no Cuban restraints, the flow of
drugs to the U.S. could be greatly facilitated by a Cuba base of operation and accelerate considerably. ¶ In the
midst of an unstable Cuba, the opportunity for radical fundamentalist groups to operate in the region increases. If
these groups can export terrorist activity from Cuba to the U.S. or throughout the hemisphere then the war
against this extremism gets more complicated . Such activity could increase direct attacks and disrupt the
economies, threatening the stability of the fragile democracies that are budding throughout the region. In light
of a failed state in the region, the U.S. may be forced to deploy military forces to Cuba, creating the conditions
for another insurgency . The ramifications of this action could very well fuel greater anti-American sentiment throughout the
Americas. A proactive policy now can mitigate these potential future problems.¶ U.S. domestic political support is also turning against the current negative policy. The Cuban
American population in the U.S. totals 1,241,685 or 3.5% of the population.28 Most of these exiles reside in Florida; their influence has been a factor in determining the margin of
victory in the past two presidential elections. But this election strategy may be flawed, because recent polls of Cuban Americans reflect a decline for President Bush based on his policy
crackdown. There is a clear softening in the Cuban-American community with regard to sanctions. Younger Cuban Americans do not necessarily subscribe to the hard-line approach.
These changes signal an opportunity for a new approach to U.S.-Cuban relations. (Table 1)¶ The time has come to look realistically at the Cuban issue. Castro will rule until he dies. The
only issue is what happens then? The
U.S. can little afford to be distracted by a failed state 90 miles off its coast. The
administration, given the present state of world affairs, does not have the luxury or the resources to pursue the traditional
American model of crisis management. The President and other government and military leaders have warned that the GWOT will be long and
protracted. These warnings were sounded when the administration did not anticipate operations in Iraq consuming so many military, diplomatic and economic resources. There
is justifiable concern that Africa and the Caucasus region are potential hot spots for terrorist activity, so these areas should be secure.
North Korea will continue to be an unpredictable crisis in waiting. We also cannot ignore China . What if China
resorts to aggression to resolve the Taiwan situation? Will the U.S. go to war over Taiwan? Additionally, Iran could conceivably be
the next target for U.S. pre-emptive action. These are known and potential situations that could easily require all
or many of the elements of national power to resolve. In view of such global issues, can the U.S. afford to sustain the status
quo and simply let the Cuban situation play out? The U.S. is at a crossroads: should the policies of the past 40 years remain in effect with vigor? Or should
the U.S. pursue a new approach to Cuba in an effort to facilitate a manageable transition to post-Castro Cuba?
Caribbean terrorists will use bioweapons
Bryan 1 (Anthony T. Bryan, director of the North-South Center’s Caribbean Program, 10-21-2001. CFR, Terrorism,
Porous Borders, and Homeland Security: The Case for U.S.-Caribbean Cooperation, p.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/4844/terrorism_porous_borders_and%20_homeland_%20security.html)
Terrorist acts can take place anywhere. The Caribbean is no exception. Already the linkages between drug trafficking and terrorism
are clear in countries like Colombia and Peru, and such connections have similar potential in the Caribbean. The security of major industrial
complexes in some Caribbean countries is vital. Petroleum refineries and major industrial estates in Trinidad, which host more than 100
companies that produce the majority of the world’s methanol, ammonium sulphate, and 40 percent of U.S. imports of liquefied natural gas
(LNG), are vulnerable targets. Unfortunately, as experience has shown in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, terrorists are likely to
strike at U.S. and European interests in Caribbean countries. Security issues become even more critical when one
considers the possible use of Caribbean countries by terrorists as bases from which to attack the United States . An
airliner hijacked after departure from an airport in the northern Caribbean or the Bahamas can be flying over South Florida in less than an hour. Terrorists
can sabotage or seize control of a cruise ship after the vessel leaves a Caribbean port. Moreover, terrorists with false passports
and visas issued in the Caribbean may be able to move easily through passport controls in Canada or the United States. (To help counter this possibility, some
countries have suspended "economic citizenship" programs to ensure that known terrorists have not been inadvertently granted such citizenship.) Again,
Caribbean countries are as vulnerable as anywhere else to the clandestine manufacture and deployment of
bio logical weapons within national borders.
Bioterror leads to extinction
Anders Sandberg 8, is a James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University;
Jason G. Matheny, PhD candidate in Health Policy and Management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health and special consultant to the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center; Milan M.
Ćirković, senior research associate at the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade and assistant professor of physics at
the University of Novi Sad in Serbia and Montenegro, 9/8/8, “How can we reduce the risk of human extinction?,”
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/how-can-we-reduce-the-risk-ofhuman-extinction
The risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those from natural ones. Although great progress has been made in reducing the number of
nuclear weapons in the world, humanity
winter.
is still threatened by the possibility of a global thermonuclear war and a resulting nuclear
We may face even greater risks from emerging technologies . Advances in synthetic biology might make it
possible to engineer pathogens capable of extinction-level pandemics . The knowledge, equipment, and materials needed to
engineer pathogens are more accessible than those needed to build nuclear weapons. And unlike other weapons, pathogens are selfreplicating, allowing a small arsenal to become exponentially destructive. Pathogens have been implicated in the extinctions of
many wild species. Although most pandemics "fade out" by reducing the density of susceptible populations, pathogens with wide host ranges in
multiple species can reach even isolated individuals. The intentional or unintentional release of engineered pathogens with high transmissibility,
latency, and lethality
might be capable of causing human extinction . While such an event seems unlikely today, the likelihood may increase
as biotechnologies continue to improve at a rate rivaling Moore's Law.
Airlines
Advantage Two: Air Travel
Airlines are in trouble – new Caribbean destinations are key –
Investor’s Business Daily 2/23/2013
(http://www.nasdaq.com/article/unlike-most-airlines-copa-shows-earnings-stability-cm220417#ixzz2aTPokZ3l)
Airline stocks aren't known for earnings stability.
Many airlines listed in the stock market today can't stay in the black long enough to have a five-year EPS Stability
Factor. Of the 10 stocks in the airline group that have a rating, the average score is 49.
The gauge runs from 0 (calm) to 99 (wild).
Copa Holdings ( CPA ) is the exception. The stock has a five-year Earnings Stability Factor of 6 -- best in the group.
The five-year EPS growth rate is 20%. The five-year revenue growth rate is 15%.
The airline provides passenger and cargo service to 29 countries, mostly in Latin America and the Caribbean. There
were 83 planes in Copa's fleet as of December. The average age of the fleet is 4.3 years, and that number will likely
drop when more Boeing 737-800 plane orders are delivered in 2014.
Latin America is not as mature of a market as North America. Copa has opportunities to grow. The company
expects to continue adding flights and destinations.
Earnings growth has been slow in recent quarters -- 3%, 8% and 4%. However, analysts expect it to pick up this year.
They estimate 2013 EPS will rise 26%. The Street expects sales to grow 15%.
The plan is a big shot in the arm for airlines
USAToday 2. July 22, 2002 “Ending Cuba travel ban would help ailing airlines” USAToday Opinion Online.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/comment/columnists/wickham/2002-07-22-wickham_x.htm
The travel ban, which is part of this nation's ill-conceived Cuban trade embargo, forbids Americans from vacationing in Cuba and places
severe restrictions on U.S. citizens visiting the island for almost any other purpose. Most of the 200,000 people who traveled legally from this country to Cuba in
2000 were Cuban Americans, who are exempt from the ban.¶ This week, as American
Airlines — the nation's largest carrier — was announcing a
second-quarter loss of nearly half a billion dollars, the Center for International Policy released a report that
concluded that the nation's travel industry would get a big shot in the arm if the ban against travel to Cuba were
lifted.¶ "Airline industry revenues would climb by as much as $415 million annually, and U.S. economic output
would increase by between $1.18 billion and $1.61 billion a year," the group said in a news release. "The economic embargo against
Cuba is not only a failed policy, but it has also cost the American economy profits and jobs ."¶ Of course, the ban on travel to Cuba isn't
responsible for U.S. airlines' $7 billion in losses last year and expected $5 billion in losses this year. Getting rid of this senseless relic of the Cold War won't
balance the books of troubled air carriers. But
it will make a sizable dent in the industry's mounting deficit.¶ While this nation's
has been far more effective in denying
American businesses access to Cuba's 11 million people — and kept this nation's airlines and travel agencies from
benefiting from Cuba's burgeoning tourism industry.¶ Cuba has nine major tourist resorts in various stages of completion.
When finished, each will have an airport large enough to land 747s, a resort golf course and hundreds of new hotel
rooms. For now, the jumbo jets queuing up at Havana's Jose Marti airport come from France, England, Canada, Germany, Mexico and Spain.¶ That
economic embargo against Cuba has failed to topple Fidel Castro's communist government, it
doesn't make any sense.
1.8 million Americans will visit Cuba a year – big boost to the U.S. economy
Pepper, Mexican journalist, 2009
(Margot, “Blockade Harms U.S. More than Cuba,” http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-0219/article/32276?headline=Blockade-Harms-U.S.-More-Than-Cuba--By-Margot-Pepper)
According to the non-profit Cuba Policy Foundation (CPF), run by a former U.S. ambassador, the blockade is causing
the U.S. economy to lose up to $1.24 billion a year in agricultural exports alone, and up to $3.6 billion more a year in
associated economic output. The CPF states that Arkansas alone is suffering half a billion dollars in lost business
annually. According to the American Society of Travel Agents, if the U.S. were to lift its travel restrictions to Cuba,
nearly 1.8 million Americans would visit the country by 2010. This could add to U.S. g ross d omestic p roduct by
as much as $1.6 billion, the society says.
Airlines are key to the economy
Tam et al. 02’ Ryan Tam and John Hansman, IMPACT OF AIR TRANSPORTATION ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL CONNECTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Most analyses on the economic impact of air transportation typically only address the direct financial effects from aviation employment and spending. The FAA has estimated that
the US aviation industry accounts for some 11.6 million direct, indirect, and induced jobs and over $316 billion
dollars in earnings. 1,2 These methods, however, may underestimate the true impact of air transportation by failing to take into account the Enabling Effects of air
transportation and how high quality air connectivity affects access to markets, capital, ideas, and people . To examine the relationship between the
economy and the air transportation system, a review of economic and social trends in the US since deregulation
was conducted. Increases in air travel, GDP growth, population geography, and travel behavior were analyzed. Growth in air travel In order to fully
document the changes in the supply of air transportation, the growth in passenger traffic data, airline capacity
and airline fleets were analyzed. The growth in domestic capacity was measured in terms of Available Seat Miles (ASMs), while Revenue Passenger Miles (RPMs)
were used to measure traffic. 3 Figure 2 shows that RPMs grew considerably faster after deregulation than in the period between 1954 and 1978. Between 1954 and 1978 US domestic
RPMs grew at an average rate of 750 million RPMs per year. Between 1978 and 2000, RPMs grew at average rate of 1.8 billion RPMs per year. Reflecting this increase in demand,
Figure 3 shows that
the domestic scheduled ASMs increased from 300 billion in 1978 to over 700 billion by 2000. Figure 4
shows that the growth in capacity and traffic was achieved by a major increase in the size of airline fleets. The number of aircraft used in commercial airline service increased from
2,000 aircraft to over 7,000 aircraft between 1978 and 1995.
U.S. economic decline causes nuclear war
Harris and Burrows 2009
(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)
Increased Potential for Global Conflict
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
history may be more
instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the 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 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
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,
descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that
become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in
an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S.
military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could
lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional
weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for
most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an
unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of
potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties
in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel,
short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather
than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge,
particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed
energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government
leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their
regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue
water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding
targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries,
and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in
Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly
difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
Airlines are key to aerospace
Shikani, Shyr, & Bhattacharjee 6/18/12 (Will, Thomas, Anshuman, Sr. Director from Yale University-BA, Economics,
Director from University of Pennsylvania '11, Finance, Entrepreurship, Director, Teleflex (TFX), WikiInvest,
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Teleflex_(TFX))
Teleflex is a manufacturing conglomerate that earns most of its money making disposable medical supplies like catheters and oxygen masks. Although medical devices made up 77% of
2009 revenue of $1.89 billion,[1] the company makes a host of other industrial products, from jet engine blades and airline baggage systems, to boat and commercial truck engine
parts. Revenue from Teleflex's aerospace products is dependent on the commercial airline industry demand for aircraft parts. The
FAA predicts new commercial aircraft construction will slow in the future[2] because of weakness in the overall economy and among passenger airlines specifically. However, the
Aerospace segment only made up 10% of Teleflex's 2009 revenues.[1] Business Financials The company's revenue decreased from $2.1 billion in 2008 to $1.89 billion in 2009.[3]
However, its operating profit remained relatively flat, as its operating revenue in 2009 was $336 million in 2009, compared to $340 million in 2008. Medical (77%% of 2009 Revenue)
Teleflex’s Medical segment businesses produce devices used in surgeries, critical care, and cardiac care, as well as parts and instruments for other companies’ medical devices. The
largest revenue source in this segment is Critical Care Products, which sells under the names Arrow, Rüsch, HudsonRCI, Gibeck and Sheridan. The next largest revenue source in this
segment is Surgical Products, which sells under the names Deknatel, Pleur-evac, Pilling, Taut and Weck. The third revenue source in this segment is Devices for Original Equipment
Manufacturers, which sells under the names TFX OEM, Beere, Deknatel, KMedic, and SMD. Contents 1 Business Financials 1.1 Medical (77%% of 2009 Revenue) 1.2 Aerospace (10% of
2009 Revenue) 1.3 Commercial (13% of 2009 Revenue) 2 Key Trends and Forces 2.1 Aerospace 2.1.1 Revenue in the Aerospace Segment is Highly Dependent on the Aerospace
Industry, Particularly the Commercial Airline Industry 2.1.2 Interest Rates impact Teleflex’s ability to pay off its substantial debt load 3 Competition 3.1 Medical 3.2 Aerospace 3.3
Commercial 4 References The products in the Medical segment are manufactured in the Czech Republic, Germany, Malaysia, Mexico and the United States and sold to hospitals and
healthcare providers all over the world. Aerospace (10% of 2009 Revenue) Revenue
in the Aerospace segment comes from engine repair
products and cargo handling systemst for commercial aviation. Engine Repair produces parts and services for flight turbines through a majorityowned venture with GE Aircraft Engines called AirFoil Technologies International (ATI). Cargo Handling Systems and Equipment acquired Nordisk Aviation Products in November 2007
to improve global market presence and produces cargo systems and spare parts under both the names Nordisk and Telair. Major sites for the Aerospace segment are in England,
Germany, Norway, Singapore and the United States. Commercial (13% of 2009 Revenue) The Commercial segment produces driver controls and engine and drive assemblies for boats,
as well as fuel management systems for automotive, rail, and industrial vehicles, and rigging products. Manufacturing sites are in Canada, Europe, Singapore, and the United States.
The Marine part of this segment sells products under the names Teleflex Marine, SeaStar, BayStar, and Sierra. Fuel Management systems are sold under the names ComfortPro,
Proheat, and Teleflex GFI. Rigging systems produces cables and other rigging equipment for applications such as oil drilling and marine transportation. Key Trends and Forces.
Aerospace Revenue in the Aerospace Segment is Highly Dependent on the Aerospace Industry, Particularly the
Commercial Airline Industry New construction of aircraft from companies like Boeing and Airbus are important sources of revenue for Teleflex because as demand for
more aircraft rises, so does demand for more parts. On the other hand, rising costs in the commercial airline industry, driven largely by
increases in the price of oil, and the 2007-2008 slowdown of the US economy, led the FAA to predict flat operations growth by airlines for the
forseeable future. Such weakness in both operations and consumer demand leads to reduced spending on everything from airplanes and
parts to expenditures on airport improvements. This cyclicality of the Aerospace industry affects demand for
everything related to the industry, including Teleflex’s airline engine repair parts and cargo handling systems.
Key to U.S. hegemony
Walker et al. 2002 Robert Walker, Chair of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners.
Final Report of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners, November,
http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf
Defending our nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the federal govern-ment.2 This translates into two broad missions—Defend
America and Project Power—when and where needed. In
order to defend America and project power, the nation needs the
ability to move manpower, materiel, intelligence information and precision weaponry swiftly to any point
around the globe, when needed. This has been, and will continue to be, a mainstay of our national security strategy. The events of September
11, 2001 dramatically demonstrated the extent of our national reliance on aerospace capabilities and related military contribu-tions to homeland security. Combat air
patrols swept the skies; satellites supported real-time communica-tions for emergency responders, imagery for recov- ery, and intelligence on terrorist activities; and
the security and protection of key government officials was enabled by timely air transport. As recent events in
the power generated by our nation’s aerospace capa-bilities is
Afghanistan and Kosovo show,
an—and perhaps the—essential
ingredient in
force projection and expeditionary operations. In both places, at the outset of the crisis, satellites and reconnaissance
aircraft, some unmanned, provided critical strategic and tactical intelligence to our national leadership.
Space-borne intelligence, com-mand, control and communications assets permitted the rapid targeting
of key enemy positions and facil-ities. Airlifters and tankers brought personnel, materiel, and aircraft to
critical locations. And aerial bombardment, with precision weapons and cruise missiles, often aided by the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the
Predator unmanned vehicle, destroyed enemy forces. Aircraft carriers and their aircraft also played key roles in both conflicts. Today’s
military
aerospace capabilities are indeed robust, but at significant risk. They rely on platforms and an industrial
base—measured in both human capital and physical facilities—that are aging and increasingly
inadequate. Consider just a few of the issues: • Much of our capability to defend America and project power depends
on satellites. Assured reli-able access to space is a critical enabler of this capa-bility. As recently as 1998, the
key to near- and mid-term space access was the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), a development
project of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the U. S. Air Force. EELV drew primarily on commercial demand to close the business case for two new launchers, with the
U.S. government essentially buying launches at the margin. In this model, each company partner made significant investments of corporate funds in vehicle
development and infrastructure, reducing the overall need for government investment. Today,
however, worldwide demand for commer-
cial satellite launch has dropped essentially to nothing—and is not expected to rise for a decade or
more—while the number of available launch platforms worldwide has proliferated. Today, therefore, the
business case for EELV simply does not close, and reliance on the economics of a com-mercially-driven
market is unsustainable. A new strategy for assured access to space must be found. • The U.S. needs
unrestricted access to space for civil, commercial, and military applications . Our satellite systems will become
increasingly impor- tant to military operations as today’s information revolution, the so-called “revolution in military affairs,” continues, while at the same time
satellites will become increasingly vulnerable to attack as the century proceeds. To
preserve critical satellite net-works, the nation will
almost certainly need the capability to launch replacement satellites quickly after an attack. One of the key
enablers for “launch on demand” is reusable space launch, and yet within the last year all work has been stopped on the X-33 and X-34 reusable launch programs •
The challenge for the defense industrial base is to have the capability to build the base force struc-ture,
support contingency-related surges, provide production capacity that can increase faster than any new
emerging global threat can build up its capacity, and provide an “appropriate” return to shareholders. But the motivation of government
and industry are different. This is a prime detrac-tion for wanting to form government-industry partnerships. Industry prioritizes investments toward near-term, highreturn, and high-dollar programs that make for a sound business case for them. Government, on the other hand, wants to prioritize investment to ensure a
continuing capa-bility to meet any new threat to the nation. This need is cyclical and difficult for businesses to sus-tain during periods of government inactiv-ity.
Based on the cyclic nature of demand, the increasing cost/complexity of new systems, and the slow pace of defense modernization, aerospace companies are
losing market advantages and the sector is contracting. Twenty-two years ago, today’s “Big 5” in aerospace were 75 separate companies, as depicted by the
historical chart of industry con-solidation shown in Chapter 7. • Tactical combat aircraft have been a key compo-nent of America’s air forces. Today, three tactical
aircraft programs continue: the F/A-18E/F (in production), the F/A-22 (in a late stage of test and evaluation), and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (just moving into
system design and development). Because of the recentness of these programs, there are robust design teams in existence. But all of the initial design work on all
three programs will be completed by 2008. If the nation were to con- clude, as it very well may, that a new manned tac- tical aircraft needs to be fielded in the
middle of this century, where will we find the experienced design teams required to design and build it, if the design process is in fact gapped for 20 years or more?
• More than half of the aerospace workforce is over the age of 404, and the average age of aerospace defense workers is over 50.5Inside the Department of
Defense (DoD), a large percent of all scientists and engineers will be retirement eligible by 2005. Given these demographics, there will be an exodus of “corporate
knowledge” in the next decade that will be difficult and costly to rebuild once it is lost. There will be a critical need for new engineers, but little new work to mature
their practical skill over the next several decades. Further, enrollment in aerospace engineering programs has dropped by 47 percent in the past nine years6, and
the interest and national skills in mathematics and science are down. Defense spending on cutting-edge work is at best stable, and commercial aircraft programs
are struggling and laying workers off. As the DoD’s recent Space Research and Development (R&D) Industrial Base Study7 concluded, “[s]ustaining a talented
workforce of sufficient size and experience remains a longterm issue and is likely to get worse.” In short, the nation needs a plan to attract, train and maintain a
skilled, world-class aerospace workforce, but none currently exists. • The current U.S. research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) infrastructure has a
legacy dating back to either World War II or the expan- sion during the Space Age in the 1960s. It is now suffering significantly from a lack of resources required for
modernization. In some cases, our nation’s capabilities have atrophied and we have lost the lead, as with our outdated wind tunnels, where European facilities are
now more modern and efficient. In the current climate, there is inad- equate funding to modernize aging government infrastructure or build facilities that would
support the development of new transformational capabil- ities, such as wind tunnels needed to design and test new hypersonic vehicles. The aerospace indus-try
must have access to appropriate, modern facil- ities to develop, test and evaluate new systems. Throughout this dynamic and challenging environ-ment, one
message remains clear: a healthy U.S. aerospace industry is more than a hedge against an uncertain
future. It is one of the primary national instruments through which DoD will develop and obtain the
superior technologies and capabilities essential to the on-going transformation of the armed forces.
Solves multiple hotspots that escalate to global war
Robert Kagan (Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Senior Transatlantic Fellow
at the German Marshall Fund) 2007 “End of Dreams, Return of History,” Hoover Institution, No. 144,
August/September, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6136
The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in
American predominance prevents these
rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions
where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through
diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a
multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it
could simply make them more catastrophic.It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in
providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that
other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be
the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials
such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world,
however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the
oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now
all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status.
impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great
geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate
Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe ’s stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States
could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be
possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance
often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power
was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that ’s not the way it works. International
order does not rest on ideas and
shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii,
and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power , a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and
Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful
states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful
institutions. It is
that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against
major conflict among the world ’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War
could erupt
between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the
United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan
remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These , too, could draw in
other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they
are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is
especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific
effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in
the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe, too, the departure of the
United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an
even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists
seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent
American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it
adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this
could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which
could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position
in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it
plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region
battle it out. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to
come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically
ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would
simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic
fundamentalism doesn ’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further
competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A
diminution of American influence would not be followed by a
diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to
secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the
vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or
Iran. The world hasn ’t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a
new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again.
Freedom of Travel
Advantage Three: Freedom of Travel
Freedom to travel is an essential liberty
HREA 13 [Human Rights Education Association, Author of “Freedom of Movement,” http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=409,
Published July 12th, 2013]
What is freedom of movement?¶ According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) all people are
entitled to the recognition of inherent dignity and certain inalienable rights, which are the "foundations of
freedom and justice in the world." Freedom of movement is part of the "liberty of man [human" (Jagerskiold)
thus making it one of the most basic human rights. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
stipulate:¶ Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country.¶ The right to free
movement, or the denial of it, within national and international borders can have profound effects upon other basic
human rights also outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other treaties. Without the right to
leave ones home, an individual may be politically repressed, prevented from observing his/her chosen religion,
prevented from enjoying the basic right to marriage or family life, or blocked from a job or an education that
ultimately could enhance his/her quality of life . Thus, while free movement may seem on the surface to be a
fairly minor and obvious human right, it actually is one of the most basic rights that in many nations around the
world, when violated, causes numerous problems and cases of suffering.¶
Liberty is a moral side constraint
Petro, Wake Forest Professor in Toledo Law Review, 1974
(Sylvester, Spring, page 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 Dijas. In sum, if one believed 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.
Solvency
Permitting travel solves without political consequences
Heuvel 7/3/2013 (Katrina Vanden, editor and publisher of “The Nation”, graduate of Princeton University, writes a weekly
column for The Post, “The U.S. should end the Cuban embargo”,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ )
Is there a greater example of utter folly than America’s superannuated policy toward Cuba? During more than 50 years corrupted by covert actions, economic sabotage, travel bans and unending embargo, the
Intent on isolating Cuba, Washington has succeeded only in
isolating itself in its own hemisphere. Intent on displacing Fidel Castro, the U.S. enmity only added to his nationalist credentials. A recent visit reveals a Cuba
that is already beginning a new, post-Castro era . That only highlights the inanity of the continuing U.S. embargo,
a cruel relic of a Cold War era that is long gone. Cuba is beginning a new experiment, driven by necessity, of trying to build its
own version of market socialism in one country. Just as populist movements in the hemisphere looked to Castro and Cuba for inspiration, now Cuba is
learning from its allies as it cautiously seeks to open up its economy. A former minister of the economy spoke of
how Cuba is committed to fostering private coops and businesses, and is beginning a push to make more state
enterprises make their own way. This month, 100 state-run produce markets and 26 other establishments are scheduled to
become private cooperatives. The government says many more establishments will follow, beginning in 2014, as an alternative to small and medium-size state businesses in retail and food
services, transportation, light manufacturing and construction, among other sectors. Despite the embargo, José Martí International Airport displays the new vitality. Hundreds of
Cuban Americans fly into see relatives, bringing everything from flat-screen TVs to consumer basics. Since President Obama lifted restrictions
on family visits in 2009, remittances and material support from Cuban Americans play a growing role in the
microeconomy of the island. Whereas in the 1990s, Havana was willing to permit only limited private enterprise as an emergency measure, government officials now speculate openly
United States managed to make Castro and Cuba an international symbol of proud independence.
about aiming toward 50 percent of Cuba’s GDP in private hands within five years. Of course, an expanding small business sector won’t resolve some central issues facing the island: access to large-scale credit and
investment and the need to boost exports and address anemic productivity, not to mention the demands of an aging population.In Havana, there is more talk about Brazil’s investment in renovating Mariel Harbor
This enormous deepwater port is designed to handle trade with the United States and beyond in a post-embargo world, if the
embargo is ever ended. Cuba’s official media remains sclerotic, though there are spirited debates in a few online outlets. But the government appears to
understand that the explosion of social media will transform communications and politics, and however tentatively, realizes
it has little choice but to change if it is to engage a younger generation . It is long past time for the United States
to end the embargo and influence Cuba, rather than threaten it. Ironically, as a result of a new Cuban migration law
lifting more than 50 years of restrictions on the ability of its citizens to travel freely abroad, taking effect this year, Cubans
are now freer to travel to the United States than Americans are to Cuba. The president can’t end the travel ban without
Congressional approval, but as Peter Kornbluhexplained in a recent piece in The Nation, he can take several steps that would transform our
policy. Obama should start by removing Cuba from the State Department’s list of nations that support terrorism, terminating the economic and commercial sanctions that come with that designation. The
Treasury could stop fining international banks for doing business with Cuba, a practice that impedes the country’s
slow opening to private enterprise. At the same time, the president could expand licensing for travel to Cuba, making it
than about Edward Snowden. Brazilian conglomerate Odebrecht had to resist threats by Florida’s state government to cut off any state contracts if it invested in Cuba.
easier for entrepreneurs, scientists, doctors and others to travel and explore commercial possibilities.
The Cold War
“Cuban Democracy and Contingency Planning Program,” designed for “regime change,” should be reconfigured to a people-to-people exchange program that would actually have some influence. Finally, as a
Obama could act directly to remove an open sore in U.S.-Cuban relations.
prelude to broader bilateral negotiations on a range of issues,
The
president could commute the sentences of the so-called Cuban Five, counterterrorism agents arrested in Florida in 1998 and convicted on espionage charges, four of whom are still imprisoned. At the same time,
the Cubans could free Alan Gross, who was arrested when he was sent to Cuba by USAID on a quasi-covert mission to supply Jewish groups with satellite connections to the Internet. Former President Jimmy Carter
The Cold War is over; the Soviet Union is no more. The United States sustains the largest
trade deficit in the history of the world with China’s communists. And yet the embargo and enmity towards Cuba
continue. The intelligence agencies and the embittered and aging Cuban refugees may never acknowledge the world as it is. But it is long past time for the United
has offered to facilitate these sensible steps.
States to turn to a policy that will engage Cuba rather than isolate ourselves.
Obama already relaxed some restrictions – but there is more to do
Torregrosa ‘11 (Luisita Lopex Torregrosa, a correspondent for Politics Daily, is a columnist for the International
Herald Tribune and NYTimes.com global editions and a contributor to the Los Angeles Times Op-Ed page. “Obama
Lifts Some Cuba Travel Restrictions”, January 15, 2011. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/15/some-cuba-travelrestrictions-are-lifted/ )
NEW YORK – The Obama administration has ended some restrictions on Americans' travel to Cuba, but let the
nearly 50-year-old embargo stand.¶ The White House said Friday that the changes would allow travel to Cuba by
academic, religious and cultural groups. But restrictions remain in place on tourist travel to the island. The
president also expanded the number of airports that can serve the Cuban market. Most travel to Cuba from the
United States originates in Miami and New York.¶ The administration had been expected to make the changes
months ago but did not want to announce them before the mid-term elections and during a time when American
Alan Gross, a contractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development, was detained in Havana, the New York
Times reported.¶ Some U.S. travel restrictions for Cuba lifted The new rules, which end restrictions put in place by
President George W. Bush, will also allow Americans to send money to Cubans, except for members of the Castro
government and the Communist Party.¶ "This is an important step forward for our Cuba policy," Sarah Stephens,
director of the Washington-based Center for Democracy in the Americas, said in a statement. "At a time when
Cubans are changing their system in fundamental ways, it is a good idea to have greater engagement, more
Americans traveling to Cuba, and more opportunities to learn from each other as every day Cubans reshape their
lives and their country. We will continue to press for the freedom to travel to Cuba for all Americans.”
Case Extensions
Cuban Transition
Plan Key
Ending the ban helps the democratization process—mutliple warrants
Peters, vice president of the Lexington Institute, 1/30/2001
(Philip, “End the Travel Ban to Cuba,” http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/end-travel-ban-cuba?print)
Congress and the president should end the travel ban so that all Americans may exercise their right
to travel freely to Cuba, without having to seek a special license from the federal government. This policy, which aims to
¶ So here’s a start:
deny hard currency earnings to the Cuban government, may have made sense when Cuba and the Soviet Union were threatening countries in this hemisphere.
It makes no sense today when, according to a 1998 Pentagon report, Cuba
poses no national security threat and its military
capabilities are “residual” and “defensive.”¶ ¶ The travel ban is unevenly applied. While all others are barred from travel without
a special license, Cuban-Americans may travel once annually in the case of a family “humanitarian emergency” – a restriction that is not enforced in practice,
and that leads to huge numbers of late December and New Year’s visits to supposedly sick relatives.¶ ¶ The
travel ban is also arbitrary. It targets
this source of hard currency earnings when other flows remain open. Together, family remittances and revenues
from U.S. phone calls pump about $60 million each month into Cuba, much of which reaches the government.¶ ¶
But one of the most important reasons to allow Americans to travel to Cuba is that it would serve our national interest. In the past decade
Cuba’s economy has made small turns toward free-market policies: allowing microenterprises to open, allowing farmers to sell produce on the open market,
opening over 300 freely priced farmers markets across the island, opening joint ventures with foreign companies in tourism, mining, communications, and other
sectors.¶ ¶ Each
of these reforms is limited by Cuba’s still-prevailing socialist ideology – but each has allowed many thousands of
workers to gain skills and experience in market settings and to lift their families’ earnings above the Cuban average. As American travelers rent
rooms in private homes, hire taxis, dine in family restaurants, and buy artists’ works, they will boost these
entrepreneurs’ earnings – and they in turn will fuel demand for the produce that private farmers bring to market.
Cuba’s emerging private sector will expand.¶ ¶ Finally, an end to the travel ban would transmit American ideas and
values as students, churches, cultural and sports groups, and individual Americans meet their Cuban counterparts.
Strong links between our societies may not topple Fidel Castro any sooner than the trade embargo – but as Cuba makes its way in a post-Soviet
world, they will encourage free-market development, help individual Cubans and their communities, and build
links to the generation of Cubans that will succeed Castro’s generation. All of this serves our national interest.¶ ¶
“There’s nothing positive in isolating a people, ” a Havana priest once told me. America should heed his advice.
Lifting the travel ban is key to change Cuban Politics while also boosting the US hotel industry
Schneider 10 [Howard Schneider, Author of “Congress reviewing Cuban sanctions, may lift travel ban,”
Washington Post Staff Writer, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070605164.html, Published July 7th, 2010.]
Lifting the travel rules, however, is potentially the more profound change. Americans are currently allowed to
travel to Cuba under certain circumstances -- if they have a special permit to promote agricultural sales, for
example, or, as of last year, if they are going to visit members of their immediate family.¶ Tourism is still prohibited,
and business groups say they see the potential for hundreds of thousands of Americans to begin vacationing in
Cuba if the rules are changed. That, they argue, might be a more effective tool for changing the country's politics;
it would also be a step toward business groups' ultimate goal of lifting the embargo altogether.¶ With little
American presence there since the late 1950s, Cuba is considered a ripe market for U.S. hotel and service
companies -- a potentially profitable Caribbean playground.
Reformation of the travel ban promotes democratic for Cuba
Farr 4-30 [Sam Farr, U.S. Representative for California's 20th congressional district, serving in Congress since 1993,
“Members of Congress ask White House to expand Cuba travel policy,”
http://farr.house.gov/index.php/component/content/article/37-2013-press-releases/965-members-of-congressask-white-house-to-expand-cuba-travel-policy, Published March 30th, 2013.]
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Sam Farr (D-CA) today sent a letter signed by 59 Members of Congress to
President Barack Obama, asking the Administration to expand its current policy for travel to Cuba. The letter
encourages President Obama to allow all categories of permissible travel to Cuba, including people-to-people
travel, to be carried out under a general license.¶ “There are no better ambassadors for democratic ideals than the
American people,” said Congressman Farr. “ By including all forms of permissible travel under a general license,
more Americans can engage in the kind of people-to-people diplomacy that can promote democratic change and
advance human rights .” ¶ In 2009, President Obama announced Reaching Out to the Cuban People, a set of
policy changes that fully restored the rights of Cuban-Americans to visit their families in Cuba and send them
unlimited remittances. This has resulted in the reunification of thousands of families and has provided the capital
for Cubans to take advantage of economic reforms in Cuba and start their own businesses.¶ In 2011, President
Obama took another important step by reauthorizing purposeful travel for all Americans, fostering meaningful
people-to-people interaction between American and Cuban citizens. But these trips require a specific license
granted to specialized travel service providers. Unfortunately, the licensing process has reportedly been expensive,
slow, cumbersome, and arbitrary, causing delays and – in some cases cancellations- of trips that enable Americans
to exercise their right to purposeful travel to Cuba.¶ Earlier this year, Cuba removed the restrictions on most Cubans’
foreign travel, including travel to the United States, a move that the United States and many in the international
community had been pushing for.¶ The letter calls upon the President to use his executive authority to included
people-to-people travel under a general license. ¶ “ A pragmatic policy of citizen diplomacy can be a powerful
catalyst for democratic development in Cuba ,” said Farr. “ This change is the next step in supporting a 21st
century policy of engagement in US-Cuba relations.”
Eliminating the travel ban will increase US economy and spur democracy
Rangel 11 (Charles B. May 12, 2011, U.S. Representative for New York's 13th congressional district,
“TIME TO LIFT TRAVEL BAN, EMBARGO AND INCREASE TRADING WITH CUBA”,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ )
Congressman Charles Rangel, a strong proponent of normalizing U.S.-Cuban relationship, today introduced three
pieces of legislation aimed to allow the free exchange of people, goods and ideas between the two countries. The
bills follow Cuba's recent announcement of its new economic guidelines legalizing the sale of real estate and cars and expanding private cooperatives that could
open commerce for the long-isolated Caribbean nation. "For
too long our country has adhered to failed and outdated policies
toward Cuba that have benefited neither the United States nor the people of Cuba," said Congressman Rangel. "With the
passage of these bills, we will be able to fundamentally reshape our foreign policy toward our closest Caribbean
neighbor." Rangel's three bills introduced today include the Promoting American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act, the Export Freedom to Cuba
Act, and the Free Trade with Cuba Act. Collectively, these Acts will lift travel restrictions on Cuba, open trade between the U.S.
and Cuba, and increase exports to the island nation. According to a 2009 U.S. International Trade Commission
Report, the effect of lifting trade restrictions on Cuba would increase U.S. exports to that nation from
approximately $924 billion to $1.2 trillion , an increase of anywhere from $216 to $478 million dollars. The boost
to tourism and travel as a result of lifting travel limits would significantly increase Cuban demand for agricultural
and commercial products and allow for the purchase of more U.S. products , according to the report. "We should
embrace Cuba's steps to open their economy with the outside world," Rangel stated. "Facilitating American exports to Cuba will do
more than just gain revenue from a profitable, new source. We
will be able to transmit American culture, ideals and democracy
through this relationship . I hope that these bills will fix a policy that has been broken for years."
Easing travel restrictions would lead to a more democratic and free nation
Hoeven 10 (John H. Hoeven, North Dakota governor, The Bismarck Tribune, July 18, 2010, “Senators
favor ending Cuba travel ban”, http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ )
Wyoming's two senators and sole congresswoman are supporting a bill to lift the U.S. ban on travel to Cuba. Sens.
Mike Enzi and John Barrasso, both Republicans, are co-sponsoring a bill to end the ban. Enzi and North Dakota Democratic
Sen. Byron Dorgan are the main sponsors and say they have the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and pass the bill. Rep. Cynthia Lummis was
one of four Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee to vote in favor of lifting the travel ban and ending a ban
on selling U.S. agricultural products to Cuba. The bill passed the committee 25-20. Similar proposals have made it this far in Congress
before, but many lawmakers say liberalizing trade with Cuba only would help a regime guilty of human rights
violations. "Repression is repression and dictatorships are dictatorships, no matter where they are located or whether you want to use their resorts," Sen.
Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said recently. Enzi believes that opening, not restricting, contact with Cuba would nurture
democracy and freedom , said his spokeswoman, Elly Pickett. "He really believes that the way to get change to happen in Cuba is to
have a free flow of ideas, and that free flow of ideas will happen when Americans are able to travel there and
share their experiences," Pickett said. "He thinks that we've been doing the same thing for all this time and nothing has changed. So it's time to
change." Barrasso said U.S. citizens should have the freedom to travel to Cuba to visit relatives. Lummis said she favors
opening up a new market for Wyoming's agricultural products. "Wyoming's farmers and ranchers cannot afford to lose any opportunities during these
challenging economic times," Lummis said. President Obama hasn't yet said whether he supports either the House or Senate bill.
Lifting the travel ban on Cuba is a key starting point to spreading US influence throughout the
region
Griswold 05 [Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, Author of
“Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba,” http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/fourdecades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba, Published October 12th, 2005]
America’s economic and political influence in Cuba. First, the travel ban should be lifted. According to U.S. law,
citizens can travel more or less freely to such “axis of evil” countries as Iran and North Korea. But if Americans
want to visit Cuba legally, they need to be a former president or some other well-connected VIP or a Cuban
American.¶ Yes, more American dollars would end up in the coffers of the Cuban government, but dollars would also
go to private Cuban citizens. Philip Peters, a former State Department official in the Reagan administration and
expert on Cuba, argues that American tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell
art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced
farmer’s markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors, food venders, and other entrepreneurs.¶ Second, restrictions
on remittances should be lifted. Like tourism, expanded remittances would fuel the private sector, encourage
Cuba’s modest economic reforms, and promote independence from the government .¶ Third, American farmers
and medical suppliers should be allowed to sell their products to Cuba with financing arranged by private
commercial lenders, not just for cash as current law permits. Most international trade is financed by temporary
credit, and private banks, not taxpayers, would bear the risk. I oppose subsidizing exports to Cuba through agencies
such as the Export-Import Bank, but I also oppose banning the use of private commercial credit.¶ Finally, the HelmsBurton law should be allowed to expire. The law, like every other aspect of the embargo, has failed to achieve its
stated objectives and has, in fact, undermined American influence in Cuba and alienated our allies.¶ Lifting or
modifying the embargo would not be a victory for Fidel Castro or his oppressive regime. It would be an overdue
acknowledgement that the four-and-a-half decade embargo has failed, and that commercial engagement is the
best way to encourage more open societies abroad. The U.S. government can and should continue to criticize the
Cuban government’s abuse of human rights in the U.N. and elsewhere, while allowing expanding trade and
tourism to undermine Castro’s authority from below.¶ We should apply the president’s sound reasoning on trade in
general to our policy toward Cuba. The most powerful force for change in Cuba will not be more sanctions, but more
daily interaction with free people bearing dollars and new ideas.¶ How many decades does the U.S. government
need to bang its head against a wall before it changes a failed policy?
Cuba = Model Democracy
Pushing Cuban reform through the Embargo is key to the spread of
Democracy in Latin America
Arias-King 8 – Fredo Arias-King, founder of the academic quarterly Demokratizatsiaya: The Journal of Post-Soviet
Democratization, analyst with two regional think tanks: CEON (Miami) and CADAL(Buenos Aires), June 20, 2008,
“Latin America and European ‘Soft Power’ Geopolitics,” Documentos, Year VI, No. 86,
online: http://www.cadal.org/pdf/download.asp?id_nota=2399
Cuba to the rescue? Para
doxically, but quite realistically, Cuba could become a source of inspiration for Latin America. But instead of inspiring misguided
Rousseauean romantics, corrupt demagogues and guerrillas, this time the island nation could give hope to those forces
attempting to reform the hemisphere. It could also be the main conduit of European soft power into the rest of the region.¶ So far, only
Chile has provided (albeit reluctantly) a model for the reformist forces of the region. Costa Rica is also oftentimes touted as an example of a socially
sensitive democracy—although it’s still basically poor. All the other examples are too deeply flawed to offer any kind of
model. Cuba could use its pending transition from communism to escape the cultural pathologies of latinoamericanismo,
just as several other nations did with the even more pernicious ‘Central Europeanism’ of interethnic conflict, militarism, poverty and war.
The only democracy east of Switzerland in the interwar period was Tomáš Masaryk’s Czechoslovakia. However, today there are over a dozen
functioning democracies in the region—countries that took advantage of good leadership and a social consensus to dramatically reinvent
themselves. The transition from communism provides this opportunity, if the elites take advantage of what Leszek
Balcerowicz calls the ‘window of opportunity’, before the honeymoon of extraordinary politics gives way to the restraining
humdrum of ordinary politics.¶ If a post-authoritarian Cuba decides to go further than a mediocre status-quo antetransition and finds
the courage to model itself as a Caribbean Estonia, then the implications for the rest of the hemisphere will be
profound. A Cuba with a Havel or a Mart Laar as president, that implements administrative reform, lustration, a flat tax, open trade,
rigorous banking reforms, fiscal discipline, low indebtedness, property rights and fair privatisation, that maybe even joins NATOas a way to
reform its bloated military—this Cuba could see Asian-style growth rates and a dramatically better rank in the UN’s Human
Development Index
Latin American democracy is key to global democracy
Fauriol and Weintraub, 95 - director of the CSIS Americas program and professor of Public Affairs at the
University of Texas (Georges and Sidney, The Washington Quarterly, “U.S. Policy, Brazil, and the Southern Cone”)
The democracy
theme also carries much force in the hemisphere today. The State Department regularly
parades the fact that all countries in the hemisphere, save one, now have democratically elected
governments. True enough, as long as the definition of democracy is flexible, but these countries turned to democracy mostly of their own
volition. It is hard to determine if the United States is using the democracy theme as a club in the
hemisphere (hold elections or be excluded) or promoting it as a goal. If as a club, its efficacy is limited to this hemisphere, as the
1994 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Indonesia demonstrated in its call for free trade in that region, replete with
nondemocratic nations, by 2020. Following that meeting, Latin
Americans are somewhat cynical as to whether the
United States really cares deeply about promoting democracy if this conflicts with expanding
exports. Yet this triad of objectives—economic liberalization and free trade, democratization, and sustainable development/ alleviation of
poverty—is generally accepted in the hemisphere. The commitment to the latter two varies by country, but all three
are taken as valid. All three are also themes expounded widely by the U nited States, but with more vigor in this
hemisphere than anywhere else in the developing world. Thus,
failure to advance on all three in Latin America will
compromise progress elsewhere in the world.
Cuba is a litmus test for global democracy
Bilbao 13 [Tomas Bilbao, Executive Director of the Cuba Study Group, prior to joining the CSG, Mr. Bilbao served as
Director of Transition for Senator-elect Mel Martinez, http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/ouropinions?ContentRecord_id=af75be3d-d21e-47eb-82ce-090b5e65ac01, “Tomas Bilbao of the Cuba Study Group
discusses a strategic approach to US policy towards Cuba,” Published July 3rd, 2013]
As anyone familiar with Cuba knows, the nation remains an anomaly in the Western Hemisphere. While some
Latin American nations have questionable democratic practices, Cuba remains the only country in the region that
does not hold elections, a litmus test for democracy. Furthermore, the Castro regime has an atrocious record when it
comes to freedom of speech, jailing of dissidents, and economic liberty. Raúl Castro has taken some baby steps towards opening
up the economy, but his reforms are not enough to suggest that Cuba will transition to a free society anytime soon.¶ However,
Cuba has remained under the stranglehold of the brothers Castro for the past 50 years, despite the US’s
imposition of one of the strictest sanctions regimes it has against any country. A hard-liner community in the United
States insists that isolating Cuba is the best approach; any economic or political engagement may both empower the regime and
recognize its legitimacy. It’s hard to argue against punishing the Cuban government, especially when the Cuban people have
suffered so much because of it.¶ Nevertheless, we’re not in the 1960s anymore and opinion on the issue isn’t
uniform, even among Cuban-Americans. A growing group advocates for a more strategic approach to the Cuba
issue instead of the status quo. Included in this group is Tomas Bilbao, Executive Director of the Cuba Study Group, with
whom I had the pleasure of speaking earlier this week. Prior to joining the Cuba Study Group, Mr. Bilbao was Deputy Director of
Operations at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Personal Aide to Secretary Mel Martinez from 2001
to 2003 in the George W. Bush administration. He then served as Director of Operations for Mel Martinez for U.S. Senate and
Director of Transition for Senator-elect Mel Martinez. In his role at the Cuba Study Group, he oversees all the group’s projects
and activities, such as developing policy recommendations and educating congress and the executive branch on the issue.
Cuba is a global model for democracy
Harrington ’13 (Keith Harrington, a board director with the New Economics Institute, an
economics graduate student at the New School for Social Research and the former Maryland/DC
Field Director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “New Cuba: Beachhead for Economic
Democracy Beyond Capitalism”, January 17, 2013. http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13918-thenew-cuba-a-beachhead-for-economic-democracy-we-should-support )
The year 2012 may have been the United Nation's International Year of Cooperatives, but 2013 may turn out to be
the more historic year for worker-ownership if the Cubans have anything to say about it.¶ To listen to the
mainstream American media, however, you'd never know it. As a video supplement to a recent New York Times
article makes clear, the corporate press has already made up its mind on how the story of Cuba's economic
liberalization is bound to end:¶ "In a state defined by all-consuming communism for the past 50 years, capitalist
change comes in fits and starts, and only at the pace that the government is willing to allow."[Emphasis added]¶ In
other words, Cuba's post-communist story ends just like China's - in capitalism, because according to orthodox
dogma, there's nowhere else to go. Trapped by the limited possibilities of this dichotomist capitalism-orcommunism mentality, mainstream commentators lack the perspective needed to appreciate (much less inform
others) that a transition away from a state-dominated command economy might conceivably lead to a type of
market that is very distinct from our elite-shareholder-dominated and profit-fixated capitalist model.¶ But that is
precisely the nuanced story we find in Cuba when we dig just below the surface and consider the very guidelines the
Cuban government has adopted to steer the transition process. Since the state unveiled its nuevos lineamientos or
new guidelines for economic development in 2010, the easing of government restrictions on private
entrepreneurial activity has only constituted a single aspect of a much broader picture of change. Unfortunately,
The New York Times and its ilk have gotten so hung up on the privatization shift, that they've left out crucial details
about the types of private enterprises the Cuban government is attempting to foster.¶ Specifically, the government
is placing high priority on the development of worker-owned-and-managed firms and has recently passed a law
intended to launch an experimental cadre of 200 such firms. Under the law, workers - rather than government
bureaucrats or elite boards of directors - will democratically run the businesses, set their own competitive prices,
determine wages and salaries and decide what to do with the profits they generate. In other words, Cuba's new
worker cooperatives will operate pretty much along the same lines as their successful cousins in the capitalist world,
including Spain's Mondragon Cooperative Corporation.¶ But what sets the Cuban cooperative experiment apart and
renders it such an incredible opportunity for the global worker-cooperative movement, is its occurrence in a
political-economic milieu that is currently free from the distorting effects of capitalist competition. This is
significant because while cooperatives have proven just as competitive as capitalist firms in a capitalist context,
when capitalist profits and growth assume top priority, worker-owned firms may be compelled to act more like
capitalist firms and subordinate core objectives such as worker empowerment and well-being, community
development and environmental sustainability. Indeed, as cooperatives grow, even the percentage of actual
worker owners in their ranks has been known to decline, as we've seen with Mondragon.¶ In short, the workerownership movement could greatly benefit from a national-scale economic environment that will allow
cooperative enterprises to develop according to their own particular democratic nature and exhibit their true
potential, free from the profit-above-all dictates of capitalism. No country bears as much promise in this respect
than contemporary Cuba.¶ Nevertheless, for Cuba's experiment to work, all efforts should be made to steer the
economy and the behavior of the country's emergent private entrepreneurial class in a direction that comports
with the ethos and objectives of economic democracy. Above all, this would likely require severe restrictions, if not
an outright ban, on the entry of large foreign capitalist firms or the establishment of large domestic capitalist firms.
For, as economists such as Jamee Moudud of Sarah Lawrence University and many structuralist thinkers have
pointed out, as jobs and tax revenues become dependent on the success of capitalist firms, societies become
constrained in their ability to pursue developmental paths that do not prioritize capitalist accumulation. Accordingly,
during the early years of the cooperative experiment, Cuba should seek to limit foreign direct investment to
cooperative or triple-bottom-line firms as much as possible, facilitate joint-ventures between such firms and its own
cooperatives and continue to seek industrial loans largely from committed social democratic partners such as
Venezuela, and other "pink-tide" trade partners.¶ Finally, the global cooperative movement must appreciate the
historic, strategic importance of Cuba's experiment and mobilize its resources to support the effort. As observers
of the situation have pointed out, Cuba's experience with worker cooperatives is limited primarily to its
agricultural sector, and the establishment of a robust non-agricultural cooperative sector will require serious
provision of training, technical support and worker acculturation. On this front, the experience of successful
worker-ownership movements in Argentina, the United States, Spain and other countries could prove invaluable.
Such assistance might be coordinated with the help of organizations such as Democracy at Work, the Democracy at
Work Network, the Democracy Collaborative and the Working World, all of which specialize in helping worker
cooperatives grow and thrive.¶ Of course, anyone can bolster this important beachhead for economic democracy by
simply spreading the word and helping plug the gap in the media's coverage of Cuba's transition. Please help bust
the myth that markets mean capitalism for the new Cuba by sharing this article and others cited here.
Latin America Democracy Modeled
Latin America is a key model to make democratic transitions effective
Fauriol et al 95 (Georges, director of the CSIS Americas Program, and Sidney, William E. Simon Chair in Political
Economy at CSIS, Professor at School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, Summer 1995, The
Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3, “U.S. Policy, Brazil, and the Southern Cone,” p. 123)
The democracy
theme also carries much force in the hemisphere today. The State Department regularly parades the fact that all
countries in the hemisphere, save one, now have democratically elected governments. True enough, as long as the definition
of democracy is flexible, but these countries turned to democracy mostly of their own volition. It is hard to determine if the United States is using the
democracy theme as a club in the hemisphere (hold elections or be excluded) or promoting it as a goal. If as a club, its efficacy is limited to this hemisphere, as
the 1994 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Indonesia demonstrated in its call for free trade in that region, replete with nondemocratic
nations, by 2020. Following that meeting, Latin Americans are somewhat cynical as to whether the United States really cares deeply about promoting
Yet this triad of objectives - economic liberalization and free trade,
democratization, and sustainable development/alleviation of poverty – [are] genera- accepted in the hemisphere.
The commitment to the latter two varies by country, but all three are taken as valid. All three are also themes expounded widely by the
United States, but with more vigor in this hemisphere than anywhere else in the developing world. Thus, failure to
advance on all three in Latin America will compromise progress elsewhere in the world.
democracy if this conflicts with expanding exports.
Air Travel
Cuba Key
People will travel Orbitz and other travel companies are already making plans and promoting
people to lobby congress to allow them to travel to Cuba
Schaal, travel columnist for USA Today, 5/10/2009
(Dennis, “In Block-ade-Buster Move, Orbitz Launches 'Open Cuba' Campaign,”
http://dennisschaal.blogspot.com/2009/05/orbitz-launches-open-cuba-campaign.html)
Orbitz is offering a $100 coupon toward a four-night vacation package to Cuba and the online travel agency's Away.com brand is
featuring a Cuba Travel Guide, with tips about exploring Old Havana and the Afro-Cuban heritage in Santiago de Cuba.¶ Imagine that.¶ It's all part of a
petition campaign and website that Orbitz is officially launching tomorrow that calls on Congress and the Obama administration
to end the 50-year-old Cuba travel ban. The petition reads:¶ " We call on you to reverse our failed policy of isolation and
end the 50-year ban on travel to Cuba in the United States . We believe that every American should have the freedom
to travel to any country in the world , including Cuba, because the interaction between peoples from different countries
is the single most powerful way to advance the causes of peace and prosperity ."¶ In light of the Obama administration's steps
to loosen travel to Cuba by Cuban families, I heartily endorse the effort.¶ Americans should have the right to travel anywhere, and I give
credit to Orbitz for taking the bold step to take a leadership position in the travel industry on this issue. ¶ Orbitz and market-research firm Ipsos released a poll in
tandem with the campaign launch that shows that 67 percent of respondents would back a plan to allow travel agents to book Cuba travel and 63 percent
supported allowing online travel agencies to do so, as well. ¶ I believe this was a bold move by Orbitz because the OTA risks a boycott and a backlash.¶ And, it's
also curious that the Interactive Travel Services Association, the trade group that represents major OTAs and global distribution systems (GDSs) like Sabre,
Galileo, Worldspan and Amadeus, didn't lead or at least join in the effort.¶ Perhaps there is some dissension in ITSA about the move.¶ As much as I applaud
Orbitz's Open Cuba campaign, I have to say that offering the $100 coupon for Cuba travel cheapens the effort. ¶ Signers of the petition get emailed a promotion
code, which is good toward a four-night Cuba air-hotel vacation package if you register on Orbitz.com and once the federal government approves travel to Cuba
for the general public.¶ Orbitz officials plan on presenting the petition to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., later this year, but the coupon offering opens Orbitz
to charges that the petition signers may have been swayed by the discount.¶ At any rate, I hope other major travel companies and nontravel companies join the
It is not only a travel issue, but a human rights issue. ¶ There is growing momentum toward lifting the
Cuba travel ban and travel companies, including some airlines, are getting excited. AirTran Airways and Allegiant Air already are dusting
off plans.¶ In the Orbitz-Ipsos poll, 72 percent of respondents said they believe restarting U.S.-to-Cuba travel would benefit the daily
lives of the Cuban people.¶ Clearly, the boycott hasn't worked and only has served to cause greater suffering for
the Cuban people.¶ Let's take this opportunity to push travel to Cuba and to put pressure on Raoul Castro to open
up the society.
campaign. ¶
Airlines are vying for routes to Cuba once the travel ban is lifted—they want to go to Cuba
Seattle Times 5/10/2009
(http://seattletimes.com/html/traveloutdoors/2009201854_nationweek10.html)
Waiting in the wings for Cuba to open up are companies such as United Airlines, which holds far more international travel
rights to the island nation than any other U.S. carrier. It inherited those rights when it purchased Pan Am's Latin American routes in the early
1990s.¶ If the ban is lifted, United could fly, or sell, 31 routes that it controls between the U.S. and Cuba , including the
potentially lucrative New York-Havana and Miami-Havana routes, according to the Department of Transportation.¶ United wouldn't disclose
its plans for serving the island. "Right now, we are monitoring the dialogue," said spokeswoman Robin Urbanski.¶ Delta Air Lines holds rights to
five routes between the two countries; Continental owns rights to two routes.
Airline Failing
Airline industry faces tough future – consolidation is only a temporary fix – they need a shot
in the arm
Johnston 4-2 [Katie Johnston, Boston Globe business reporter covering travel, tourism, and workplace,
Author of “Mergers putting US airlines on a solid course,”
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/04/02/airline-mergers-bring-stabilityindustry/OPsPBPjpwQU1oDwaudLUeK/story.html, Published March 2nd, 2013.]
From the 1970s until the early 2000s, as many as 10 major US carriers regularly slugged it out in the skies. But they were also bleeding money,
forcing many into bankruptcy — and into mergers with competitors.¶ But if the latest merger between American Airlines and US Airways is
completed this fall as expected, it could usher in a new era for the industry, and for travelers. Just four carriers would control 85 percent of the
domestic market, culminating a period of consolidation that analysts say has helped transform a “chronically sick industry” into a profitable
one.¶ For many travelers, counterintuitively, the trend could mean more choices as the bigger airlines fly to more major destinations and compete
on more domestic routes, instead of concentrating on certain regions of the country, analysts said. In addition, as the big four airlines cut back
service in some markets, it could provide openings for smaller carriers.¶ In Boston, for example, American and US Airways reduced their
flightsat Logan International Airport, with their combined market share of passengers shrinking to 24 percent last year from 33 percent in 2007.
In the meantime, low-cost carrier JetBlue Airways moved in and became Logan’s largest carrier.¶ Related¶ Media advisory sparks speculation of
JetBlue in Worcester¶ Graphic: The shrinking US skies¶ William Swelbar, an airline researcher at MIT, said passengers in major markets will
often have three or four airlines to choose from instead of one or two. ¶ “Today these four carriers compete in all four corners of the contiguous
48,” he said. “There’s more choice to more places.”¶ A federal bankruptcy court in New York last week approved the
merger between American and US Airways, removing one of the last remaining hurdles to creating a combined
airline that would operate under the name American Airlines. The merger still needs approval from antitrust regulators at the
Department of Justice and by US Airways shareholders.¶ The American-US Airways merger would be the fourth among major airlines in six
years. Delta Air Lines acquired Northwest in 2008, United Airlines merged with Continental in 2010, and Southwest Airlines bought AirTran in
2011.¶ The nation’s oldest airlines, the so-called legacy carriers, have been in turmoil for more than a decade, following the terrorist attacks of
2001 that left them with empty planes and massive losses. Jet fuel prices soared, and the growth of low-cost airlines such as JetBlue and
Southwest put further pressure on legacy carriers.¶ With fewer airlines pressuring one another to keep prices low, fares
could rise, analysts said, but the merger mania could also help improve the flying experience. The new mega-
carriers are making money, allowing them to buy new planes and upgrade services.¶ “If you look at the US
industry versus the rest of the world seven years ago, it literally has done a total flip in that the US region is
now the most profitable in the world,” said John Thomas, a Boston-based aviation specialist at L.E.K. Consulting. “If you’ve said
that to someone a few years ago, they would have thought you were crazy.” ¶ For consumers, the major concern when the number of competitors
go down is prices going up. When an airline announces its intention to raise fares, all it takes is one or two carriers not matching the price
increase to force the airline to roll back the increase. With fewer carriers, said George Hoffer, an aviation analyst and adjunct economics
professor at the University of Richmond, “You’re less likely to have a renegade.” ¶ But so far, concerns about soaring fares have not come to
pass, said Daniel Kasper, a Boston-based aviation analyst at the consulting firm Compass Lexecon, noting that ticket prices have not climbed
dramatically. Adjusted for inflation, airfare has risen less than 2 percent since 2008, according to the Department of Transportation. Since 1995,
ticket prices have dropped nearly 15 percent, adjusted for inflation — although that does not account for the cost of checked bags, meals, and
other fees added in recent years.¶ Airlines become more efficient when they join forces, which helps keeps airfares down, noted L.E.K. analyst
Thomas.¶ A decade ago, airlines operated out of about 20 domestic hub cities scattered around the country; today, as carriers cut back operations
in smaller markets such as Cincinnati, Memphis, and Cleveland, there are half that number. That means fewer choices for Cincinnati travelers,
but by connecting through fewer cities, airlines can concentrate passengers on bigger aircraft and cut operating costs. ¶ “Taking hubs out of the
system is actually good for the efficiency of the system,” Thomas said. “It’s not as if the airlines are going to charge you more because there are
less choices. They’ll charge you the same because their costs have come down.”¶ With airlines saving money, they have more to invest in their
product. Outdated baggage systems have been updated, including a new bag tracking app introduced last year by Delta. American, Southwest,
and United are purchasing hundreds of new planes apiece; United has already added the technologically advanced, but currently grounded,
Boeing 787 to its fleet. Many carriers have spruced up their airport lounges and added lie-flat seats for international business class travelers¶ In
Boston, mergers have helped bring in new international carriers, which rely on global alliance partners to generate
passengers. Copa Airlines , which will start flying out of Boston to Panama City in July, was probably more confident about starting service
here after its alliance partner United beefed up its presence in Boston following the Continental merger, Thomas said. “It would be suicide if
they just did it by themselves,” he said.¶ Still, despite the benefits travelers get from the era of consolidation, the days of
air travel woes are far from over. MIT’s Swelbar says travelers will still find plenty to complain about, from the
tight squeeze in coach to the price of tickets at peak travel periods to the inevitable delays.¶ Swelbar is
confident air travel horror stories will remain a popular subject of cocktail party conversation: “They are
making all of this money, and they still make me pay for my checked bag.
US Airline companies are in bad shape—profit data continuously shows decline
ZIR 6/14/12 Zacks Investment Research, “Opportunities in Airline Stocks,” Minyanville,
http://www.minyanville.com/sectors/transportation/articles/airlines-airline-industry-airline-industrystocks/6/14/2012/id/41469,
The global airline
industry continues to face challenges in 2012, from rising costs -- fuel, in particular -- and economic uncertainties. The condition
looks bleaker ahead with a weak outlook for Europe, given its financial problems. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) projects
overall airline profits of $3.0 billion for 2012. This is down from the $3.5 billion projected last December and $4.9 billion projected in
September. Moreover, the 2012 profit outlook is also below the estimated $7.9 billion in 2011 and $16 billion earned in 2010.
This steep decline in the industry's profitability is a function of the overall unfavorable macro backdrop with
which the industry must operate this year. Regional Forecast North America: North American airlines like United Continental Holdings Inc. (UAL), Delta
Air Lines Inc. (DAL), Southwest Airlines Co. (LUV), JetBlue Airways Corporation (JBLU), and US Airways Group Inc. (LCC), have shown improvements thanks to higher
ticket prices, capacity cuts and improved ancillary revenues. Together, these companies are expected to post profits of $900 million, down from the
previous expectation of $1.7 billion in 2012.
The US Airline Industry is declining now due to a lack of passengers
Denver Post 13 Denver Post Business January 8, 2013 “Report: U.S. airline industry will see decline in passengers,
flights in 2013” http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22331309/report-u-s-airline-industry-will-seedecline#ixzz2aN9rjuxy
Projected trends in 2013 in the
U.S. airline industry indicate declines in flights, seat capacity and passengers , the Evergreenbased Boyd Group International said in a report Tuesday.¶ The nation's air transportation system will likely see a 1.5 to 2.0 percent
drop in traffic in 2013, said the group, which is an aviation consulting and research firm whose clients include airlines, airports and financial institutions.¶
Into subsequent years, growth rates will also likely be much slower than previously expected, with U.S. airports handling nearly 50
million fewer passengers in 2017 than the Federal Aviation Administration is currently forecasting.¶ "Airline traffic can no longer be forecast
simply with mathematical formulas based on metrics such as GDP, inflation, buying power and the like," said Michael Boyd, chairman of
the Boyd Group.¶ "There are only 10 major full-schedule airline systems left, and each has its own subjective strategy in
regard to where and if it adds capacity."¶ The report notes that airlines will be flying fewer airplanes in the next
three years, as 50-seat "regional" jets get retired.¶ However, Boyd said this will actually be positive for many small airports, particularly in
markets where these jets are operating in excess of 80 percent full.¶ "In a number of cases, the replacement with larger airliners will be revenue-positive for
both airlines and the communities they serve," said Boyd.¶ The firm forecasts by
2017 U.S. carriers will retire nearly 1,000 of the 50-seat
airliners.¶ The report predicts robust demand for new generation mainline-cabin airliners - the Boeing 737MAX, the Airbus A-32ONEO and the Bombardier CSeries .¶ The report noted that "open and robust take-traffic-from-the-competition" strategies are mostly a thing of the past. Alliances and code-sharing
between major carrier systems, combined with an increased focus on hub turf, now defines airlines strategies.¶
Airline Industry is failing now—years of failed government policies have pushed the industry to
the brink
Republic 12 The Republic News April 2012 “U.S. airline industry failing consumers, panel contends”
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/hhhevent/news/4.26.12_Republic_Oberstar_airline.pdf
WASHINGTON - The American
airline industry is failing shareholders, employees and passengers, while regional hubs such as Memphis and
being starved of service and priced out of competition, a panel of experts said Tuesday.¶ Mergers and a focus on
loyalty programs for business passengers on high-volume routes have bypassed major cities, including St. Louis, Minneapolis and Pittsburgh, forcing
companies to relocate because of deteriorating air service, said Phillip Longman of the New America Foundation, a nonprofit Washington
Cincinnati are
think tank that hosted the panel discussion. Longman's article in the current Washington Monthly magazine spurred discussion on whether it is time to "reregulate" the airlines.¶ Longman noted that railroads were regulated in the 1880s after Wall Street financiers sought to dominate the market rather than
provide services in the public interest.¶ James Oberstar, the former Minnesota congressman who served for decades on the House Transportation Committee,
most recently as its chairman, said he introduced Essential
Air Service for smaller communities as an amendment to a deregulation bill in 1978. He
is now under attack.¶ Oberstar reviewed the history of deregulation over those 30-plus years, saying he vigorously opposed
airline mergers as airlines won antitrust immunity and the public suffered "the adverse effects of collusion."¶ " We're now in a stall ," Oberstar said,
noted the program
"and
the future of air travel is extremely perilous . ... Government failed the public by not intervening to prevent the consolidation of
economic power in the airline sector in the years after deregulation."
Removing the ban helps the airline industries—Air Tran is already preparing for routes
Reffes 09. Melanie Reffes is the Carribbean and Latin American reporter for Aviation Week
Magazine. May 19, 2009. Aviation Daily Vol. 376 No. 35 p. 1 Lexis
Chicago-based Orbitz
is entering the political arena with a new Web site and petition urging the U.S. Congress and the Obama
Administration to end the 50-year ban on travel to Cuba.¶ The Web site, www.opencuba.org, enables people to petition the U.S.
government to end the Kennedy-era restrictions on travel to Cuba, a lucrative but off-limits destination for the American travel industry.¶ Taking a page from
the Obama presidential campaign, Orbitz is aiming to build grass-roots support for travel to Cuba by appealing to the 14 million monthly visitors to its Web site.
«We want to organize our customers and other interested parties to reach out to Obama and other government officials,» said Barney Harford, Orbitz’s CEO,
who along
with 12 other travel industry executives met with Obama following the removal of restrictions on family
visits by Cuban Americans.¶ Those who voice their support for travel to Cuba, via the Web site, will receive a $100 coupon toward a Cuba vacation
redeemable if the travel ban is lifted and flights and tour packages can be sold legally by Orbitz.¶ Company officials plan to take the petition to Washington later
this year.¶ Meanwhile, AirTran
Airways says it wants to be one of the first airlines to operate scheduled flights to Cuba if
restrictions are eased, AirTran CEO Bob Fornaro told analysts recently.¶ «It would be my guess that probably four or five airlines would like to
enter the Cuba market when the time comes,» he said.¶ As the Obama Administration tries to ease the restrictions that have choked travel between
the U.S. and Cuba, several airlines are dusting off plans, or creating new ones, to enter the market. «I think a lot of airlines
are going to have a lot of interest,» Fornaro said.¶ Delta considers it premature to say if it would serve Cuba, «based on the fact that we don’t
know how any changes would be structured in the future for tourism,» spokesman Kent Landers said. Orlando-based AirTran has operated charter flights from
Miami to Havana with tour operators in past years, and Allegiant recently entered into fixed-fee flying contracts with several parties to provide charter service
between Miami and four Cuban cities in support of the Cuban family charter program to begin next month.¶
Ban Key
Lifting the travel ban would boost the US economy by creating jobs and boosting revenues for
airline companies.
Lexington Institute et al 9 (Center for Democracy in the Americas, the Latin America
Working Group, the New America Foundation, and Washington Office on Latin America, June 23, LIFTING THE TRAVEL BAN WILL STRENGTHEN U.S. INTERESTS
AND HELP THE CUBAN PEOPLE, http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/travel_talking_points.pdf)
Ending the travel ban would be good for the U.S. economy; it would expand demand for U.S. products, help the tourist
travel and airline industries, and create much-needed American jobs. U.S. economic output would increase by between $1.18 billion
and $1.61 billion a year and create 16,888 to 23,020 new jobs if current restrictions on travel to Cuba were lifted ,
according to an independent study conducted in 2002 by the Brattle Group, a respected economic forecasting firm. According to the Brattle Group report,
increased demand for air travel alone would generate significant economic activity due to the corresponding
increase in demand for inputs to airline service and the ripple effect on consumer spending. Applying a multiplier
estimate of 2.6 to capture these “indirect” and “induced” spending effects, the total impact would range from
$650 million to $1.08 billion a year in additional U.S. output and the creation of 9,285 to 15,417 new jobs.
Ending the ban helps the Tourism industry
AP 13 Associated Press 2013, retrieved from askmen.com. “Cuba Travel Ban Costing U.S” Online
http://www.askmen.com/fine_living/fine-living-news_250/269_cuba-travel-ban-costing-us.html
HAVANA (AP) -- U.S.
tourism companies could take in at least $1.1 billion a year on trips to Cuba if Washington didn't
ban most of its citizens from visiting the island, officials said Wednesday during a video conference with American tour operators.¶ That
figure includes $600 million in sales by airlines, $300 million for travel agents and $200 million in U.S. tourism-related
exports and services, including food and drink items that could be sold to Cuba as well as spending on advertising
to promote Cuba as a destination, said Miguel Figueras, a top aide to Cuban Tourism Minister Manuel Marrero.¶ Figueras provided few details on
how Cuba arrived at the numbers, but pointed to a previous study by the American Society of Travel Agents in asserting that
without travel restrictions, 1.8 million U.S. tourists would come to Cuba annually.¶ That includes some 482,000
Cuban-Americans visiting relatives on the island, he said.¶ More than 2 million foreign tourists come to Cuba every year, with the biggest
numbers from Canada, Britain, Italy, Spain and France.
US aviation gains through lifting cuba embargo
7/22/10 http://castor.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=199815
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representative Kathy Castor announced today that she is stepping up pressure on the
Obama Administration to approve charter airline flights from Tampa International Airport to Cuba by signing on to
the bill that will open travel to Cuba by all Americans. ¶ “There is great potential for new jobs and economic growth
throughout the Tampa Bay area if travel and trade opportunities are expanded over the coming years. The Port of
Tampa, Tampa International Airport, area businesses and our neighbors are well positioned for new economic
opportunities,” Castor said.¶ ¶ Castor is the only member of Congress from Florida to call for modernization of the
longstanding ban on traveling to Cuba.¶ “The approval of Tampa as a Cuba charter flight airport combined with a
new ability of all U.S. citizens and legal residents to travel to Cuba would boost our region’s economy and create
new jobs,” Castor said.¶ “Our State of Florida and our Port of Tampa are poised to take on these new business
opportunities. This change is needed and it is overdue,” said Jose Valiente, Director & Chairman of the Tampa BayCuba Business Council of the World Trade Center of Tampa Bay. “And Congresswoman Castor is right to champion
Direct Charter flights from Tampa. Lifting the travel ban to Cuba and establishing direct flights between Tampa and
Havana, not only would represent tremendous savings and less hardship to travelers and welcomed new business,
but it will generate approximately $420,000 per month for the Tampa Aviation Authority.”¶ “If the travel ban is
lifted, Cuban-Americans would be able to visit friends and reestablish ties to Cuba. Tampa area families and
educators could expand educational and cultural exchanges and learn more about the rich heritage of Tampa’s
Cuban-Americans,” Castor said. “Now is the time to remove the obstacles and hassles that have prevented CubanAmericans without direct family ties and other Floridians from traveling to Cuba, and for our region to reap the
benefits that freedom of travel can bring.” Castor will cosponsor H.R. 874 by U.S. Representative Bill Delahunt (DMass.), the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act, which currently has 178 cosponsors in the U.S. House of
Representatives.¶ Castor also is renewing her call to add Tampa International Airport as a port of entry and exit for
charter flights to Cuba. “Tampa Bay families traveling to and from Cuba are suffering economic hardship and severe
inconvenience by having to travel to Miami in order to fly to Cuba.” She continues discussions with the Obama
Administration on this important next step for Florida families. In 2008, Castor urged then-President-Elect Obama to
fulfill his campaign promise swiftly by issuing an executive order to lift travel restrictions on family travel to Cuba
and to increase the amount of monetary remittance that families could send to relatives in Cuba. President Obama
adopted these actions after taking office.¶ “I also will continue to call for improved human rights in Cuba and
believe that improved travel, education and cultural exchanges can provide greater attention to human rights.
Cuban human rights activists concur, and the negotiated release of 52 political prisoners by the Catholic Church is a
positive step,” Castor said.¶ “A week does not pass when a Tampa Bay area family with a personal family challenge
does not communicate with me or my office for assistance with family travel to Cuba, particularly when relatives are
sick or dying in Cuba or in the Tampa Bay area,” noted Castor. Currently charter flights to Cuba are only available
from Los Angeles, New York and Miami. The Tampa Bay area has the fifth largest population of Cuban Americans in
the United States.
Removing the travel ban helps provides a significant boost to the US based airline and cruise
industries
Robyn, Reitzes, and Church 2 (Dorothy Robyn is Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment, James Reitzes specializes in antitrust and regulatory economics. A former Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) economist, he has provided expert economic analyses in litigation and regulatory proceedings in the United
States, Canada, Europe, Latin America, and Australia, Bryan Church is a writer for the Brattle Group. “THE IMPACT
ON THE U.S. ECONOMY OF
LIFTING RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVEL TO CUBA” Prepared for the Center for International Policy. July 15, 2002
http://www.brattle.com/_documents/uploadlibrary/upload353.pdf
Elimination of restrictions on travel to Cuba would have a noticeable impact on the U.S. ¶ economy, assuming that U.S.
companies were allowed to transport Americans to Cuba. The U.S.¶ airline and U.S.-based cruise industries would benefit most
directly , but other sectors would¶ benefit as well because of the broad impact of increased travel demand on the U.S. economy.¶ To
summarize, we estimate that an additional 3.01 million Americans would travel to¶ Cuba annually on U.S. air carriers in the
absence of travel restrictions. Of those, 2.72 million¶ would be tourists and 289,000 would be Cuban Americans visiting
friends and relatives.¶ Excluding travel diverted from other destinations, U.S. airlines would earn from $250 million to¶ $415
million a year in increased revenue as a result of this added demand. Overall, the increased¶ demand for air travel
would expand U.S. economic output by $650 million to $1.08 billion a year¶ and create 9,285 to 15,417 new jobs.¶
For the U.S.-based cruise industry, we estimate that elimination of travel restrictions to¶ Cuba would lead to a 10.8
percent net increase in demand for Caribbean cruises. To meet this¶ demand, U.S.-based cruise lines would spend an additional
$280.15 million annually in the¶ United States. Overall, this increased demand for cruise travel would expand U.S.
economic¶ output by $532.28 million annually and create 7,603 new jobs.¶ Looking at the total impact of lifting travel
restrictions, measured as the combined impact¶ of increased air and cruise travel, our estimates indicate that U.S. economic output
would expand¶
annually by $1.18 billion to $1.61 billion. This
expansion would create 16,888 to 23,020 new¶ jobs.
Airline Industry Economy I/L
Airlines provide the key internal link to the economy
Tam et al. 02’ Ryan Tam and John Hansman, IMPACT OF AIR TRANSPORTATION ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL CONNECTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Most analyses on the economic impact of air transportation typically only address the direct financial effects from aviation employment and spending. The FAA has estimated that
the US aviation industry accounts for some 11.6 million direct, indirect, and induced jobs and over $316 billion
dollars in earnings. 1,2 These methods, however, may underestimate the true impact of air transportation by failing to take into account the Enabling Effects of air
transportation and how high quality air connectivity affects access to markets, capital, ideas, and people . To examine the relationship between the
economy and the air transportation system, a review of economic and social trends in the US since deregulation
was conducted. Increases in air travel, GDP growth, population geography, and travel behavior were analyzed. Growth in air travel In order to fully
document the changes in the supply of air transportation, the growth in passenger traffic data, airline capacity
and airline fleets were analyzed. The growth in domestic capacity was measured in terms of Available Seat Miles (ASMs), while Revenue Passenger Miles (RPMs)
were used to measure traffic. 3 Figure 2 shows that RPMs grew considerably faster after deregulation than in the period between 1954 and 1978. Between 1954 and 1978 US domestic
RPMs grew at an average rate of 750 million RPMs per year. Between 1978 and 2000, RPMs grew at average rate of 1.8 billion RPMs per year. Reflecting this increase in demand,
Figure 3 shows that
the domestic scheduled ASMs increased from 300 billion in 1978 to over 700 billion by 2000. Figure 4
shows that the growth in capacity and traffic was achieved by a major increase in the size of airline fleets . The number of aircraft used in commercial airline service increased from
2,000 aircraft to over 7,000 aircraft between 1978 and 1995.
Airline industry is key to the U.S. economy
May 5 (James, President – Air Transport Association of America, FDCH, 7-13, Lexis)
Unfortunately, excessive taxes on the airline industry are crippling a vital segment of our economy. The
the commerce of the United States and the
U.S. airline industry plays a major role in driving
growth of our national economy. An economically crippled airline industry is a drag
on the national economy and ultimately will prevent it from realizing its full potential. Robust air transportation is critical to sustaining
our recovery and catalyzing the next round of growth essential to our nation's economic competitiveness. As airline job losses continue to
mount, and service to small- and mid- size communities is cut, it is not simply the airlines and their employees who are suffering; it is the broader economy that feels the results. Air
transportation grows both the national and local economies - its absence reverses that effect .
Aviation is the core of our economy – jobs and production
ATA 10 (Air Transport Association, “When america flies, it works 2010 Economic Report” p. 5
http://www.airlines.org/Documents/economicreports/2010.pdf)
The theme for this year’s economic report – When America Flies, It Works – was chosen to communicate the
critical role that commercial aviation plays in
virtually every facet of our economy and our daily lives. As the national and world economies begin to recover from the serious turmoil of the recent past, it is a
particularly opportune time to focus on the contributions that a strong commercial aviation sector has, can and will make to a revitalized job market and a brighter future for
everyone. Some of the most recent government data tells us that commercial
aviation helps generate more than $1.2 trillion in economic
activity and almost 11 million U.S. jobs. Remarkable, but like a lot of statistics, the raw data does not always connect us to the real story – the faces and families
that numbers can never fully capture. The story is not just about the important business trip, the quick family vacation or the more than half a million jobs in the
airline industry. Nor is it just about the travel and entertainment industry jobs or the jobs in the emerging market for sustainable alternative aviation fuels, which the airlines
are leaders in pursuing, or the more than a million other jobs of every description that are generated with every aviation job .
It is not just about the farm worker in California producing fresh lettuce for the New York market or the Alaskan boat captain delivering tomorrow’s salmon for the Florida restaurant
trade. It is not just about the Internet-enabled catalog business that delivers products and supplies across the country with the click of a mouse – or the job multiplier that this
economic activity produces. It
is, in fact, about all of these and millions upon millions more jobs – and the faces and families they represent –
that are created, fostered and powered by commercial aviation.
Airline industry is crucial to the US economy
Cambell 6 (Hill, The Campbell Hill Aviation Group, Aviation and Research Consultants, “CommercialAviation and
the American Economy,” March 2006,
http://www.smartskies.org/NR/rdonlyres/E20C3048-9FD4-46D8-91F16303C4148C5A/0/CommercialAviationEconomyMar06.pdf)
The U.S. civil aviation sector (including air transportation, related manufacturing and air-based travel and
tourism) wascollectively responsible for $1.37 trillion of national output in 2004, supporting 812.3 million U.S. employees and
$418billion in personal earnings. Commercial aviation accounts for the majority of this impact with $1.2 trillion in output,$380 billion in
earnings and 11.4 million jobs. U.S. Civil Aviation Economic Impact (2004) Commercial AviationGeneral AviationTotalOutput(Billion$)1,2471181,365Earnings(Billion$)38038418Employment(000)11,393
956 12,349 The
national economy is highly dependent on commercial aviation, which, in 2004, was directly
orindirectly responsible for 5.8 percent of gross output (i.e., economic activity), 5.0 percent of personal earnings
and 8.8percent of national employment. Commercial Aviation Impact as Share of U.S. Economy (2004) 8.8% 5.0% 5.8% Employment Personal Earnings Gross
OutputThe direct impact of commercial air transportation and related industries in 2004 was estimated at $247 billion in gross output, $72 billion in earnings and over a million
jobs.Commercial air transportation was the primary source of direct impacts, with $130 billion of output, followed by aircraft and related manufacturing ($75 billion), air
expresscouriers ($24 billion) and air transportation support goods and services ($18 billion).The indirect impact of expenditures by commercial air travelers creates an additional
$191billion of gross output, $67 billion of earnings and 3.3 million jobs. The lodging and food industries account for more than half of the total output impact, with retail
shopping,recreation and entertainment and ground transportation spending also top-impact sectors. The direct and indirect impacts of commercial aviation generate additional
“induced”impacts as industry revenues and employee earnings are used to purchase goods and services from other industries. The service sector accounts for nearly half of the $1.25
trillionin total national impact, both through travel and tourism services and support to both direct and indirect impact industries. 1 The total impact of commercial aviation is
comparedto national aggregates of Gross Output and Personal Earnings (from the Bureau of Economic Accounts) and Total Covered Employment (from the Bureau of Labor Statistics)
for the 50 states and the District of Columbia combined. Commercial Aviation Total Impacts = $1.25 Trillion of U.S. Economic Activity Transportation & Warehousing
18%Manufacturing 20% Services 47% Trade 11% All Other 4% The distribution of national impacts by state was determined by the location of airports, tourist destinations,
businesstravel centers and aviation-related manufacturing plants, as well as the location of industries supporting the direct and indirect impact industries. California was the topimpactstate, with $203 billion of gross output impacts, followed by Texas, Florida, Georgia and New York. Top Five States in Total Impact (Billion $) $202.6 $126.9 $93.6
$72.7 $59.5California Texas Florida Georgia New York The distribution of impacts by congressional district was similarly based on local industrial patterns, with the top districts being
either tourist destinations (Hawaii and Las Vegas area) or top aviation manufacturing centers (Western Washington). Top Five Congressional Districts in Total Impact (Billion $)
$9.6$8.9 $8.7 $8.2 $7.8 District 1, Hawaii District 2, Hawaii District 3, Nevada District 8, Washington District 1, Nevada ii Introduction This report summarizes the estimated impactof
commercial aviation on individual U.S congressional districts in 2004. The impact estimates are based on a model that allocates national and state-level impacts derived
usingsecondary economic and transportation data sources of the federal government. 2 The district-level estimates use Census of Population employment data for 2000 as allocated
tothe 109 th congressional districts. The following describes the general concepts and methodologies used to measure the economic impact of the U.S. civil aviation sector,
and provides summary results at the national, state and district level. Appendix A provides a detailed description of the impact methodologies. Appendices B and C summarize
theresults at the state and congressional district levels, respectively. National Economic Impact of U.S. Civil Aviation The economic impact of any particular industry sector can
bemeasured by the output, earnings and employment associated with that sector, plus any “induced” (or supporting) economic activity that results from any purchases made by
thatsector’s firms and its employees. Total economic impacts of an industry combine both the first-level impacts (as related to the industry’s sales, revenue or output)
and inducedimpacts (as related to purchases required to “produce” the sales or output and household spending by the industry’s employees). Civil aviation is a vital component of the
U.S. passenger and cargo transportation sector and combines commercial and general aviation activities. The air transportation sector supports the travel and tourism industries, and
issupported by the aircraft manufacturing sector. Each of these sectors also requires supporting goods, services and labor. The relative impact of civil aviation depends both on
theabsolute demand for the output from these sectors, as well as the interdependence between those sectors and other U.S. industries. The primary impacts of commercial aviationon
the U.S. economy are related to: (1) airlines and supporting services (commercial and non-commercial) (2) aircraft, engines and parts manufacturing (3) air-visitor travel andother triprelated expenditures The first two sectors (air transportation and aircraft manufacturing) create direct impacts through the production of air transportation services; thevisitor-related
expenditures constitute an indirect impact that results from the primary transport activity. All
of these sectors are directly affected andsupported
by the U.S. civil aviation system, consisting of airports, airspace and supporting infrastructure. Directimpacts of civil aviation
are created through transportation and other activities at airports as measured by theemployment, payroll and sales/output associated with the following
industries/entities: Scheduled and non-scheduledcommercial airlines (passenger and cargo) and air couriers Airport and aircraft service providers (including FAA andother government
services) Air cargo service providers General aviation (non-commercial) aircraft operators(including flight schools) 2 These results were based on methodologies similar to those
developed in previous nationalimpact studies by the Federal Aviation Administration and other industry groups. [continues]The
induced impacts of commercial
aviation in 2004 are estimated at $808 billion in output, $241 billion in earnings and 7.0 million jobs. Mostof these
induced impacts are attributed to the service sector, with the manufacturing and trade sectors also
significantlyimpacted [continues] The commercial aviation sector has a significant impact on the U.S. economy,
based on airtransportation and airport services, manufacturing of air transportation equipment and
travel and tourism expendituresby air passengers. Including induced impacts, the U.S. commercial aviation
sector drove $1.2 trillion in economicactivity (5.8 percent of U.S. total), $380 billion in earnings (5.0 percent) and
11.4 million jobs (8.8 percent). 14 Thedirect impact of commercial air transportation and related industries was
estimated at $247 billion in gross output, $72billion in earnings and over one million jobs, with commercial air
transportation accounting for approximately half of the output impact. Commercial air-traveler expenditures
created indirect impacts including $191 billion of gross output,$67 billion of earnings and 3.3 million jobs, mostly for the accommodations
and food service sectors. The nationalimpact of commercial aviation extends to every congressional district and the District of Columbia. California was thetop-impact state, with $203
billion of gross output impacts followed by Texas, Florida, Georgia and New York. The top congressional districts are either major tourist destinations (Hawaii and Las Vegas area) or
top aviation-manufacturingcenters (Western Washington), although every district has a significant level of impact.
Civilian Aviation key to the economy
FAA 11 (U.S Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, “The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation
on the U.S. Economy,” http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/FAA_Economic_Impact_Rpt_2011.pdf,
July 9, 2012.)
The civil air transport industry has a crucial role in fostering trade and making any place on the globe easily and
quickly accessible. U.S. industry and consumers depend on the vital services of air transportation, which continue
to maintain and vitalize the U.S. economy. • In 2009, air carriers operating in U.S. airspace transported 793 million
passengers over 1,039.3 billion revenue passenger miles (RPM). • More than 53 billion revenue ton-miles (RTM) of
scheduled freight passed through U.S. airports in 2009.1 • The U.S. civil aviation manufacturing industry continues
to be the top U.S. net exporter. According to 2009 data from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), the
U.S. civil aviation manufacturing industry supported a positive trade balance of over $75 billion. Overview • New research
using data from 2008 shows that air transportation enables economic activity in other sectors of the economy through: -- Air-traveler spending of $249.2
billion on goods and services -- Freight valued at $562.1 billion transported domestically or to other countries •
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) spent more than $14 billion on air traffic operations, facilities and
equipment, and grants in 2008 to support the National Airspace System (NAS). These expenditures supported
additional spending in the economy totaling $26.2 billion and nearly 218,000 jobs with earnings of $8.3 billion.
Economic Survival During Uncertainty… Even during tough times, the efficiency of our air transport network
serves commerce and supports jobs that maintain and revitalize the strength of the U.S. economy. Today, despite
the lingering effects of the recent recession, there is cautious optimism in the air transport sector of the U.S.
economy.2 The industry continues to be flexible, developing new, innovative ways to lower costs and increase revenues. • For example, as the price of jet
fuel climbs, air carriers are finding innovative ways to conserve fuel and lower costs by: replacing old, heavy drink carts with new lighter versions, removing seat
back telephones, installing lighter seats and TV monitors, applying new coating on airframes to improve airflow, and purchasing more tugs to reduce engine fuel
use.3 • Investment in air transportation infrastructure leads to smart growth and job creation. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided
funding to invest $200 million in FAA facilities and equipment and $1.1 billion in grants-in-aid for airports. • The 2011 FAA Aerospace Forecast expects a 4.9
percent increase in RPM between fiscal years 2010 and 2011, and projects average annual growth rates of 3.8 percent per year through 2031 for U.S. airlines.
From live traffic reports sent from helicopters to justintime delivery of life
saving organs for transplant, civil aviation has become an integral part of the U.S. lifestyle and commerce. In
challenging economic times, the services that air transportation provides are essential among the building blocks
for recovery and economic growth. The financial crisis and ensuing recent recession affected the whole world. Global real GDP growth slowed
Sustaining Economic Development and Growth…
from 3.9 percent to 1.6 percent between 2007 and 2008,4 while real GDP growth in the U.S. dropped from 1.9 to zero percent during the same period.5
Although June 2009 marked the end of the recent recession in the United States, real GDP growth fell by 2.6 percent by the end of 2009 and unemployment
rates reached double digits. However, despite
the dramatic slowdown of the economy and impact on the aviation
industry, the U.S. economy produced $14.1 trillion in value-added economic activity and sustained 140 million
jobs.6 At the same time, civil aviation economic activity: • Supported 10.2 million jobs • Contributed $1.3 trillion
in total economic activity • Accounted for 5.2 percent of total U.S
US airline industry key to the US economy
GAIP 8 (11-16-08, MIT Global Airline Industry Program "Airline Industry Overview,"
http://web.mit.edu/airlines/analysis/analysis_airline_industry.html//[07.09.12]//LL)
In the
US airline industry, approximately 100 certificated passenger airlines operate over 11 million flight departures per year, and carry over
one-third of the world’s total air traffic – US airlines enplaned 745 million passengers in 2006. US airlines reported over $160 billion in total
revenues, with approximately 545,000 employees and over 8,000 aircraft operating 31,000 flights per day [2].
The economic impacts of the
airline industry range from its direct effects on airline employment, company profitability and net worth to
the less direct but very important effects on the aircraft manufacturing industry, airports, and tourism
industries, not to mention the economic impact on virtually every other industry that the ability to travel
by air generates. Commercial aviation contributes 8 percent of the US G ross D omestic P roduct, according to recent
estimates [3]. The
economic importance of the airline industry and, in turn, its repercussions for aircraft
manufacturers, makes the volatility of airline profits and their dependence on good economic conditions
a serious concern for both industries. This concern has grown dramatically since airline deregulation, as stable profits and/or government assistance were
the rule rather than the exception for most international airlines prior to the 1980s. As shown in Figure 1, the total net profits of world airlines have shown
tremendous volatility over the past 15 years. After the world airline industry posted 4 consecutive years of losses totaling over $22 billion from 1990 to 1993, as a
result of the Gulf War and subsequent economic recession, it returned to record profitability in the late 1990s, with total net profits in excess of $25 billion being
reported by world airlines from 1995 to 1999. Even more dramatic was the industry’s plunge into record operating losses and a financial crisis between 2000 and
2005, with cumulative net losses of $40 billion.
ssenger airline key to US economy
GAO 9 (Government Accountability Office, "Airline Industry Contraction Due to Volatile Fuel Prices and Falling
Demand Affects Airports, Passengers, and Federal Government Revenues,"
http://www.gao.gov/assets/290/288650.pdf//[07.09.12]//LL)
The U.S. passenger airline industry is vital to the U.S. economy. Airlines directly generate billions of
dollars in revenues each year, catalyze economic growth, and influence the quality of peoples’ lives around
the globe. Communities, both large and small, depend on airlines to help connect them to the
national transportation system which links
economies and promotes the exchange of people, products, and ideas. The downturn in the airline industry that followed
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, adversely affected passengers, employees, suppliers, and communities. While U.S. airlines eventually rebounded from
that downturn, 2008
presented fresh challenges to the industry in the form of record-high fuel prices and an
economic recession. During the first half of 2008, seven smaller U.S. passenger airlines liquidated.
Aerospace dependent on Airline Industry
Gomez et al, undergraduate at Harvard pursuing a degree in quantitative finance, 12 [Ben Hur Gomez, John Simon,
Alan Ibrahim, http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Precision_Castparts_(PCP)] “Dependence on key customers”,) TJ
PCP’s commercial
sales depend substantially on the production rates of both Boeing Company (BA) and Airbus ,
which in turn depend upon deliveries of new aircraft. The ultimate drivers of orders and deliveries of aircraft are
underlying air travel demand, financial health of airlines, growth prospects for airline capacity, and overall
economic growth. The current increase in aerospace demand is dependent on increased spending by foreign
carriers and domestic airlines who must upgrade aging fleets. PCP stands to benefit from expected aircraft deliveries by Boeing and
Airbus, and from the replacement cycle of aging turbines and aircraft that will be upgraded or overhauled. Any factor that adversely affects the aerospace
industry (similar to the tragic events of 9/11 or the SARS travel scare) would likely pressure PCP’s operations and profitability. Bankruptcy
of another
airline, continued high oil prices, or the possibility of a major terrorist attack threaten to change the course of the recovery in the
aerospace cycle and likely impact PCP.
Airline Industry is key to jobs in the aerospace industry
Conway and Pedersen, economists, 6 (Richard S., Douglas H. Pedersen, January 2006, http://afawa.com/Aerospace_Industry.pdf “The Washington Aerospace Industry,”,) TJ
Air transportation is a vital function of a modern economy. It entails a variety of activities: aerospace
manufacturing, air passenger and freight service, airport operations, air traffic control, air transportation
arrangement, and other air support services. Today, including the suppliers of these activities, air transportation employs more than 100,000
people in Washington. This study focuses on the aerospace industry, which accounts for more than one-half of the
employment in air transportation: • The Washington aerospace industry primarily manufactures aircraft and parts.
• Led by The Boeing Company, the aerospace industry employed 65,400 people in 2005. • With an average annual wage of $83,370, more
than double the average for all industries, the aerospace industry paid $5.4 billion in wages and salaries . • Taking into
consideration the direct and indirect impact on the economy, the aerospace industry accounted for an estimated 209,300 jobs or 7.5 percent of total state
employment. • More than nine out of every ten aerospace employees worked in King County (38,800) and Snohomish County (23,700) in 2005. • The total
impact of the industry amounted to 116,400 jobs or 10.1 percent of total employment in King County and 52,100 jobs or 22.9 percent of total employment in
Snohomish County. • The
aerospace industry also accounted for 40,800 jobs or 2.9 percent of total employment in the
rest of the state. 2. BRIEF HISTORY The history of the aerospace industry in Washington is almost as long as the history
of the airplane. In 1916, just thirteen years after the Wright brothers took their first heavier-than-air flight at Kitty Hawk, William Boeing founded the
Pacific Aero Products Company and soon renamed it the Boeing Airplane Company. Initially, Pacific Aero Products employed 16 workers earning 14 to 40 cents
per hour. Selling bi-planes (Model Cs) to the navy and army during World War I, the Seattle company emerged from the conflict as a major aircraft
manufacturer.
After the war, Boeing devoted much of its effort to developing aircraft for a promising commercial
market. The airline industry began in 1925 when Congress turned over the job of flying mail to private contractors. Boeing formed a subsidiary called Boeing
Air Transport, the forerunner to United Airlines, and successfully bid on a federal contract to fly mail between San Francisco and Chicago. In 1927, the 23-hour
inaugural flight in a Model 40A carried mail as well as two-paying passengers.
Domestic airline industry strength is key to the aerospace industry
Conway 6 (Richard S., Douglas H. Pedersen, “The Washington Aerospace Industry,” January 2006, http://afawa.com/Aerospace_Industry.pdf) TJ
Volatile demand. The demand for aircraft, whether stemming from the military or the world airline industry, is
highly volatile. Given that Boeing is a major employer, the fluctuations in aircraft demand have often sent ripples
throughout the state economy. The ramp-up in Boeing production during World War II, which led to 40,000 new
jobs, helped pull the Seattle area out of the Great Depression. The subsequent lay-offs at the conclusion of the
war precipitated a recession. Despite a declining employment share, the aerospace industry can still impart
significant fluctuations to the Washington economy (Figure 4). Surging aerospace employment coupled with a
strong national economy triggered state economic booms in the late 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Spurred by 48,000
new hires in the aerospace industry, the 1983-90 expansion created fully one-fifth of the jobs in the state economy
today. Back-to-back aerospace slumps contributed substantially to the last recession.
US aerospace industry key to revitalize the economy- creates jobs and fuels trade
Trupo, International Trade Administrator from the Department of Commerce, 11, (Mary Trupo, June 21, 2011,
http://trade.gov/press/press-releases/2011/aerospace-industry-critical-contributor-to-us-economy-062111.asp
“Aersopace Industry Critical Contributor to US Economy”)
Francisco Sánchez,
Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, addressed national and international
groups at the 2011 Paris Air Show to reinforce the President’s National Export Initiative (NEI) and support the U.S. aerospace industry. “The
U.S. aerospace industry is a strategic contributor to the economy, national security, and technological innovation
of the United States,” Sánchez said. “The industry is key to achieving the President’s goals of doubling exports by the
end of 2014 and contributed $78 billion in export sales to the U.S. economy in 2010.” During the U.S. Pavilion opening
remarks, Sánchez noted that the aerospace
sector in the United States supports more jobs through exports than any other
industry. Sánchez witnessed a signing ceremony between Boeing and Aeroflot, Russia’s state-owned airline. Aeroflot has ordered eight 777s valued at $2.1
billion, and the sales will support approximately 14,000 jobs. “The 218 American companies represented in the U.S. International
Pavilion demonstrate the innovation and hard work that make us leaders in this sector,” said Sánchez. “I am particularly
pleased to see the incredible accomplishments of U.S. companies participating in the Alternative Aviation Fuels Showcase, which demonstrates our leadership in
this important sector and shows that we are on the right path to achieving the clean energy future envisioned by President Obama.”
Aerospace key to economy - trade
GAO 6 [ September 2006, United States Government Accountability Office; ;
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06920.pdf “U.S. AEROSPACE
INDUSTRY…”]
The impact of the aerospace industry on the U.S. economy is significant, with the industry estimating $170 billion
in sales and approximately 625,000 people employed in 2005. 5 The importance of this industry to the U.S.
economy will continue to grow in the future. According to FAA, the U.S. commercial aircraft fleet is estimated to grow from 7,836 in 2005 to 10,677 in 2017.
Both passenger capacity and cargo operations are expected to continue to grow, with passenger capacity in 2007 increasing by 4.6 percent and then increasing by an average of 4.2
percent per year until 2017. FAA
estimates that over 1 billion passengers will use U.S. airports by 2015. Domestic cargo
revenue-ton miles are projected to increase at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent until 2017, exceeding 23
billion. Furthermore, the U.S. aerospace industry consistently shows a foreign trade surplus—reaching $31 billion
in 2004. Aerospace exports constituted 6.9 percent of the total value of U.S.-exported merchandise in 2004.
Aerospace key to economy
AIAA 09 [August 2009, Aerospace Industries Association of America, “Aerospace and Defense: The Strength to Lift
America”, http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/wp_strength_aug09.pdf “Aerospace and Defense: The Strength to
Lift America”] TJ
As the U.S. economy moves through uncertain times, America’s aerospace industry remains a powerful, reliable engine of
employment, innovation, and export income. Aerospace contributed $95.1billion in export sales to America’s
economy last year.1 Conservatively, U.S. aerospace sales alone account for 3-5 percent of our country’s gross domestic
product, and every aerospace dollar yields an extra $1.50 to $3 in further economic activity.2 Aerospace products and
services are pillars of our nation’s security and competitiveness. In these challenging times, the aerospace industry is
solidly and reliably contributing strongly to the national economy and the lives of millions of Americans . We strongly
believe that keeping this economic workhorse on track is in America’s best interest , To accomplish this, our government
must develop policies that strengthen the positions of all workers in all industries, especially economic producers
like aerospace and defense. This paper explains what’s at stake, and ways to ensure that a proven economic success continues to endure and thrive.
Aviation is the core of our economy – jobs and production
ATA 10 (Air Transport Association, “When america flies, it works 2010 Economic Report” p. 5
http://www.airlines.org/Documents/economicreports/2010.pdf) MJA
The theme for this year’s economic report – When America Flies, It Works – was chosen to communicate the
critical role that commercial aviation
plays in virtually every facet of our economy and our daily lives. As the national and world economies begin to recover from the serious
turmoil of the recent past, it is a particularly opportune time to focus on the contributions that a strong commercial aviation sector has, can and will make to a
aviation helps generate
more than $1.2 trillion in economic activity and almost 11 million U.S. jobs. Remarkable, but like a lot of statistics, the raw data
revitalized job market and a brighter future for everyone. Some of the most recent government data tells us that commercial
does not always connect us to the real story – the faces and families that numbers can never fully capture. The story is not just about the important business
trip, the quick family vacation or the more
than half a million jobs in the airline industry. Nor is it just about the travel and entertainment
than a
industry jobs or the jobs in the emerging market for sustainable alternative aviation fuels, which the airlines are leaders in pursuing, or the more
million other jobs of every description that are generated with every aviation job. It is not just about the farm worker in
California producing fresh lettuce for the New York market or the Alaskan boat captain delivering tomorrow’s salmon for the Florida restaurant trade. It is not
just about the Internet-enabled catalog business that delivers products and supplies across the country with the click of a mouse – or the job multiplier that this
economic activity produces. It
is, in fact, about all of these and millions upon millions more jobs – and the faces and families they
represent – that are created, fostered and powered by commercial aviation.
Airline industry is key to the U.S. economy
May 5 (James, President – Air Transport Association of America, FDCH, 7-13, Lexis)
Unfortunately, excessive taxes on the airline industry are crippling a vital segment of our economy. The U.S. airline industry
plays a major role in driving the commerce of the United States and the growth of our national economy. An
economically crippled airline industry is a drag on the national economy and ultimately will prevent it from realizing
its full potential. Robust air transportation is critical to sustaining our recovery and catalyzing the next round of
growth essential to our nation's economic competitiveness. As airline job losses continue to mount, and service to smalland mid- size communities is cut, it is not simply the airlines and their employees who are suffering; it is the broader economy
that feels the results. Air transportation grows both the national and local economies - its absence reverses that
effect .
Airline industry is crucial to the US economy
Cambell 6 (Hill, The Campbell Hill Aviation Group, Aviation and Research Consultants, “CommercialAviation and
the American Economy,” March 2006,
http://www.smartskies.org/NR/rdonlyres/E20C3048-9FD4-46D8-91F16303C4148C5A/0/CommercialAviationEconomyMar06.pdf)
The U.S. civil aviation sector (including air transportation, related manufacturing and air-based travel and
tourism) wascollectively responsible for $1.37 trillion of national output in 2004, supporting 812.3 million U.S. employees
and $418billion in personal earnings. Commercial aviation accounts for the majority of this impact with $1.2 trillion in
output,$380 billion in earnings and 11.4 million jobs. U.S. Civil Aviation Economic Impact (2004) Commercial AviationGeneral Aviation TotalOutput (Billion
$) 1,247 118 1,365 Earnings (Billion$)38038 418 Employment (000)11,393 956 12,349 The
national economy is highly dependent on commercial
aviation, which, in 2004, was directly orindirectly responsible for 5.8 percent of gross output (i.e., economic
activity), 5.0 percent of personal earnings and 8.8percent of national employment. Commercial Aviation Impact as Share of
U.S. Economy (2004) 8.8% 5.0% 5.8% Employment Personal Earnings Gross OutputThe direct impact of commercial air transportation and related industries in
2004 was estimated at $247 billion in gross output, $72 billion in earnings and over a million jobs.Commercial air transportation was the primary source of direct
impacts, with $130 billion of output, followed by aircraft and related manufacturing ($75 billion), air expresscouriers ($24 billion) and air transportation
support goods and services ($18 billion).The indirect impact of expenditures by commercial air travelers creates an additional $191billion of gross output, $67
billion of earnings and 3.3 million jobs. The lodging and food industries account for more than half of the total output impact, with retail shopping,recreation
and entertainment and ground transportation spending also top-impact sectors. The direct and indirect impacts of commercial aviation generate additional
“induced”impacts as industry revenues and employee earnings are used to purchase goods and services from other industries. The service sector accounts for
nearly half of the $1.25 trillionin total national impact, both through travel and tourism services and support to both direct and indirect impact industries. 1 The
total impact of commercial aviation is comparedto national aggregates of Gross Output and Personal Earnings (from the Bureau of Economic Accounts) and
Total Covered Employment (from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) for the 50 states and the District of Columbia combined. Commercial Aviation Total Impacts =
$1.25 Trillion of U.S. Economic Activity Transportation & Warehousing 18%Manufacturing 20% Services 47% Trade 11% All Other 4% The distribution of national
impacts by state was determined by the location of airports, tourist destinations, businesstravel centers and aviation-related manufacturing plants, as well as
the location of industries supporting the direct and indirect impact industries. California was the top-impactstate, with $203 billion of gross output impacts,
followed by Texas, Florida, Georgia and New York. Top Five States in Total Impact (Billion $) $202.6 $126.9 $93.6 $72.7 $59.5California Texas Florida Georgia
New York The distribution of impacts by congressional district was similarly based on local industrial patterns, with the top districts being either tourist
destinations (Hawaii and Las Vegas area) or top aviation manufacturing centers (Western Washington). Top Five Congressional Districts in Total Impact (Billion
$) $9.6$8.9 $8.7 $8.2 $7.8 District 1, Hawaii District 2, Hawaii District 3, Nevada District 8, Washington District 1, Nevada ii Introduction This report summarizes
the estimated impactof commercial aviation on individual U.S congressional districts in 2004. The impact estimates are based on a model that allocates national
and state-level impacts derived usingsecondary economic and transportation data sources of the federal government. 2 The district-level estimates use Census
of Population employment data for 2000 as allocated tothe 109 th congressional districts. The following describes the general concepts and methodologies used
to measure the economic impact of the U.S. civil aviation sector, and provides summary results at the national, state and district level. Appendix A provides a
detailed description of the impact methodologies. Appendices B and C summarize theresults at the state and congressional district levels, respectively. National
Economic Impact of U.S. Civil Aviation The economic impact of any particular industry sector can bemeasured by the output, earnings and employment
associated with that sector, plus any “induced” (or supporting) economic activity that results from any purchases made by thatsector’s firms and its employees.
Total economic impacts of an industry combine both the first-level impacts (as related to the industry’s sales, revenue or output) and inducedimpacts (as related
to purchases required to “produce” the sales or output and household spending by the industry’s employees). Civil aviation is a vital component of the
U.S. passenger and cargo transportation sector and combines commercial and general aviation activities. The air transportation sector supports the travel and
tourism industries, and issupported by the aircraft manufacturing sector. Each of these sectors also requires supporting goods, services and labor. The relative
impact of civil aviation depends both on theabsolute demand for the output from these sectors, as well as the interdependence between those sectors
and other U.S. industries. The primary impacts of commercial aviationon the U.S. economy are related to: (1) airlines and supporting services (commercial and
non-commercial) (2) aircraft, engines and parts manufacturing (3) air-visitor travel andother trip-related expenditures The first two sectors (air transportation
and aircraft manufacturing) create direct impacts through the production of air transportation services; thevisitor-related expenditures constitute an indirect
impact that results from the primary transport activity. All
of these sectors are directly affected andsupported by the U.S. civil
aviation system, consisting of airports, airspace and supporting infrastructure. Directimpacts of civil aviation are created through
transportation and other activities at airports as measured by theemployment, payroll and sales/output associated with the following
industries/entities: Scheduled and non-scheduledcommercial airlines (passenger and cargo) and air couriers Airport and aircraft service providers (including FAA
andother government services) Air cargo service providers General aviation (non-commercial) aircraft operators(including flight schools) 2 These results were
based on methodologies similar to those developed in previous nationalimpact studies by the Federal Aviation Administration and other industry
groups. [continues]The
induced impacts of commercial aviation in 2004 are estimated at $808 billion in output,
$241 billion in earnings and 7.0 million jobs. Mostof these induced impacts are attributed to the service sector,
with the manufacturing and trade sectors also significantlyimpacted [continues] The commercial aviation sector
has a significant impact on the U.S. economy, based on airtransportation and airport services, manufacturing of
air transportation equipment and travel and tourism expendituresby air passengers. Including induced impacts,
the U.S. commercial aviation sector drove $1.2 trillion in economicactivity (5.8 percent of U.S. total), $380 billion
in earnings (5.0 percent) and 11.4 million jobs (8.8 percent). 14 Thedirect impact of commercial air transportation
and related industries was estimated at $247 billion in gross output, $72billion in earnings and over one million
jobs, with commercial air transportation accounting for approximately half of the output impact. Commercial airtraveler expenditures created indirect impacts including $191 billion of gross output,$67 billion of earnings and 3.3 million
jobs, mostly for the accommodations and food service sectors. The nationalimpact of commercial aviation extends to every congressional district and the
District of Columbia. California was thetop-impact state, with $203 billion of gross output impacts followed by Texas, Florida, Georgia and New York. The top
congressional districts are either major tourist destinations (Hawaii and Las Vegas area) or top aviation-manufacturingcenters
(Western Washington), although every district has a significant level of impact.
Airlines provide the key internal link to the economy
Tam et al. 02’ (Ryan Tam and John Hansman, IMPACT OF AIR TRANSPORTATION ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL CONNECTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Most analyses on the economic impact of air transportation typically only address the direct financial effects from aviation employment and spending. The FAA
the US aviation industry accounts for some 11.6 million direct, indirect, and induced jobs and over
$316 billion dollars in earnings. 1,2 These methods, however, may underestimate the true impact of air transportation by failing to take into
account the Enabling Effects of air transportation and how high quality air connectivity affects access to markets, capital, ideas, and people. To examine
the relationship between the economy and the air transportation system, a review of economic and social trends
in the US since deregulation was conducted. Increases in air travel, GDP growth, population geography, and travel behavior were analyzed.
Growth in air travel In order to fully document the changes in the supply of air transportation, the growth in
passenger traffic data, airline capacity and airline fleets were analyzed. The growth in domestic capacity was measured in terms of
has estimated that
Available Seat Miles (ASMs), while Revenue Passenger Miles (RPMs) were used to measure traffic. 3 Figure 2 shows that RPMs grew considerably faster after
deregulation than in the period between 1954 and 1978. Between 1954 and 1978 US domestic RPMs grew at an average rate of 750 million RPMs per year.
the domestic
scheduled ASMs increased from 300 billion in 1978 to over 700 billion by 2000. Figure 4 shows that the growth in capacity and
traffic was achieved by a major increase in the size of airline fleets. The number of aircraft used in commercial airline service increased from 2,000 aircraft to
Between 1978 and 2000, RPMs grew at average rate of 1.8 billion RPMs per year. Reflecting this increase in demand, Figure 3 shows that
over 7,000 aircraft between 1978 and 1995.
Airline Industry key to Aerospace
Aerospace Dependent on Airline Industries
Shikani, Shyr, & Bhattacharjee 6/18/12 (Will, Thomas, Anshuman, Sr. Director from Yale University-BA, Economics,
Director from University of Pennsylvania '11, Finance, Entrepreurship, Director, Teleflex (TFX), WikiInvest,
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Teleflex_(TFX))
Teleflex is a manufacturing conglomerate that earns most of its money making disposable medical supplies like catheters and oxygen masks. Although medical
devices made up 77% of 2009 revenue of $1.89 billion,[1] the company makes a host of other industrial products, from jet engine blades and airline baggage
systems, to boat and commercial truck engine parts.
Revenue from Teleflex's aerospace products is dependent on the commercial
airline industry demand for aircraft parts. The FAA predicts new commercial aircraft construction will slow in the future[2] because of weakness in the
overall economy and among passenger airlines specifically. However, the Aerospace segment only made up 10% of Teleflex's 2009 revenues.[1] Business
Financials The company's revenue decreased from $2.1 billion in 2008 to $1.89 billion in 2009.[3] However, its operating profit remained relatively flat, as its
operating revenue in 2009 was $336 million in 2009, compared to $340 million in 2008. Medical (77%% of 2009 Revenue) Teleflex’s Medical segment businesses
produce devices used in surgeries, critical care, and cardiac care, as well as parts and instruments for other companies’ medical devices. The largest revenue
source in this segment is Critical Care Products, which sells under the names Arrow, Rüsch, HudsonRCI, Gibeck and Sheridan. The next largest revenue source in
this segment is Surgical Products, which sells under the names Deknatel, Pleur-evac, Pilling, Taut and Weck. The third revenue source in this segment is Devices
for Original Equipment Manufacturers, which sells under the names TFX OEM, Beere, Deknatel, KMedic, and SMD. Contents 1 Business Financials 1.1 Medical
(77%% of 2009 Revenue) 1.2 Aerospace (10% of 2009 Revenue) 1.3 Commercial (13% of 2009 Revenue) 2 Key Trends and Forces 2.1 Aerospace 2.1.1 Revenue in
the Aerospace Segment is Highly Dependent on the Aerospace Industry, Particularly the Commercial Airline Industry 2.1.2 Interest Rates impact Teleflex’s ability
to pay off its substantial debt load 3 Competition 3.1 Medical 3.2 Aerospace 3.3 Commercial 4 References The products in the Medical segment are
manufactured in the Czech Republic, Germany, Malaysia, Mexico and the United States and sold to hospitals and healthcare providers all over the world.
Aerospace (10% of 2009 Revenue) Revenue
in the Aerospace segment comes from engine repair products and cargo
handling systemst for commercial aviation. Engine Repair produces parts and services for flight turbines through a majority-owned venture
with GE Aircraft Engines called AirFoil Technologies International (ATI). Cargo Handling Systems and Equipment acquired Nordisk Aviation Products in November
2007 to improve global market presence and produces cargo systems and spare parts under both the names Nordisk and Telair. Major sites for the Aerospace
segment are in England, Germany, Norway, Singapore and the United States. Commercial (13% of 2009 Revenue) The Commercial segment produces driver
controls and engine and drive assemblies for boats, as well as fuel management systems for automotive, rail, and industrial vehicles, and rigging products.
Manufacturing sites are in Canada, Europe, Singapore, and the United States. The Marine part of this segment sells products under the names Teleflex Marine,
SeaStar, BayStar, and Sierra. Fuel Management systems are sold under the names ComfortPro, Proheat, and Teleflex GFI. Rigging systems produces cables and
other rigging equipment for applications such as oil drilling and marine transportation. Key Trends and Forces. Aerospace Revenue
in the
Aerospace Segment is Highly Dependent on the Aerospace Industry, Particularly the Commercial Airline Industry
New construction of aircraft from companies like Boeing and Airbus are important sources of revenue for Teleflex because as demand for more aircraft rises, so
does demand for more parts. On the other hand, rising
costs in the commercial airline industry, driven largely by increases in
the price of oil, and the 2007-2008 slowdown of the US economy, led the FAA to predict flat operations growth by airlines for the forseeable
future. Such weakness in both operations and consumer demand leads to reduced spending on everything from airplanes and
parts to expenditures on airport improvements. This cyclicality of the Aerospace industry affects demand for
everything related to the industry, including Teleflex’s airline engine repair parts and cargo handling systems.
Aero k2 Heg
Strong aerospace key to overall US Hegemony—even a moderate decline in the industry would
be disastrous
Thompson 9 (David, President – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, “The Aerospace Workforce”,
Federal News Service, 12-10, Lexis) TJ
Aerospace systems are of considerable importance to U.S. national security, economic prosperity, technological
vitality, and global leadership. Aeronautical and space systems protect our citizens, armed forces, and allies
abroad. They connect the farthest corners of the world with safe and efficient air transportation and satellite
communications, and they monitor the Earth, explore the solar system, and study the wider universe. The U.S. aerospace sector also contributes in major
ways to America's economic output and high- technology employment. Aerospace research and development and manufacturing companies generated
approximately $240 billion in sales in 2008, or nearly 1.75 percent of our country's gross national product. They currently employ about 650,000 people
throughout our country. U.S. government agencies and departments engaged in aerospace research and operations add another 125,000 employees to the
sector's workforce, bringing the total to over 775,000 people. Included in this number are more than 200,000 engineers and scientists -- one of the largest
concentrations of technical brainpower on Earth. However, the U.S. aerospace workforce is now facing the most serious demographic challenge in his 100-year
history. Simply put, today, many more older, experienced professionals are retiring from or otherwise leaving our industrial and governmental aerospace
workforce than early career professionals are entering it. This imbalance is expected to become even more severe over the next five years as the final members
of the Apollo-era generation of engineers and scientists complete 40- or 45-year careers and transition to well-deserved retirements. In fact, around 50 percent
of the current aerospace workforce will be eligible for retirement within just the next five years. Meanwhile, the supply of younger aerospace engineers and
scientists entering the industry is woefully insufficient to replace the mounting wave of retirements and other departures that we see in the near future. In part,
this is the result of broader technical career trends as engineering and science graduates from our country's universities continue a multi-decade decline, even
as the demand for their knowledge and skills in aerospace and other industries keeps increasing. Today, only about 15 percent of U.S. students earn their first
college degree in engineering or science, well behind the 40 or 50 percent levels seen in many European and Asian countries. Due to the dual-use nature of
aerospace technology and the limited supply of visas available to highly-qualified non-U.S. citizens, our industry's ability to hire the best and brightest graduates
from overseas is also severely constrained. As a result, unless effective action is taken to reverse current trends, the U.S. aerospace sector is expected to
experience a dramatic decrease in its technical workforce over the next decade. Your second question concerns the implications of a cutback in human
spaceflight programs. AIAA's view on this is as follows. While U.S. human spaceflight programs directly employ somewhat less than 10 percent of our country's
aerospace workers, its influence on attracting and motivating tomorrow's aerospace professionals is much greater than its immediate employment
contribution. For nearly 50 years the excitement and challenge of human spaceflight have been tremendously important factors in the decisions of generations
of young people to prepare for and to pursue careers in the aerospace sector. This remains true today, as indicated by hundreds of testimonies AIAA members
have recorded over the past two years, a few of which I'll show in brief video interviews at the end of my statement. Further evidence of the catalytic role of
human space missions is found in a recent study conducted earlier this year by MIT which found that 40 percent of current aerospace engineering
undergraduates cited human space programs as the main reason they chose this field of study. Therefore, I think it can be predicted with high confidence that a
major cutback in U.S. human space programs would be substantially detrimental to the future of the aerospace workforce. Such a cutback would put even
greater stress on an already weakened strategic sector of our domestic high-technology workforce. Your final question centers on other issues that should be
considered as decisions are made on the funding and direction for NASA, particularly in the human spaceflight area. In conclusion, AIAA offers the following
suggestions in this regard. Beyond the previously noted critical influence on the future supply of aerospace professionals, administration and congressional
leaders should also consider the collateral damage to the space industrial base if human space programs were substantially curtailed. Due to low annual
production rates and highly-specialized product requirements, the
domestic supply chain for space systems is relatively fragile.
Many second- and third-tier suppliers in particular operate at marginal volumes today, so even a small reduction in their
business could force some critical suppliers to exit this sector. Human space programs represent around 20 percent of the $47 billion in
total U.S. space and missile systems sales from 2008. Accordingly, a major cutback in human space spending could have large and highly
adverse ripple effects throughout commercial, defense, and scientific space programs as well, potentially triggering a series
of disruptive changes in the common industrial supply base that our entire space sector relies on.
Solves Economy
Lifting a sanctions solves Cuba’s economy
Amash ’12 (Brandon Amash, contributing writer for the Prospect Journal. “Evaluating the Cuban
Embargo”, July 23, 2012. http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/ )
§ 4.3: Lifting economic sanctions will improve economic growth in Cuba, which correlates to democratization.
Empirical evidence shows that a strong economy is correlated to democracy. According to the Modernization
Theory of democratization, this correlation is a causal link: economic growth directly leads to democratization.
Lifting the current economic sanctions on Cuba and working together to improve economic situations in the state
will allow their economy to grow, increasing the likelihood of democracy in the state, and thus promoting greater
freedom of expression, opinion and dissent.§ 4.4: A policy of engagement will be a long-term solution to
promoting democracy and improving human rights in Cuba. This proposal, unique in that it is simply one of
abandoning an antiquated policy and normalizing relations to be like those with any other country, does not present
any large obstacles to implementation, either in the short run or the long run. The main challenge is in continuing to
support such a policy and maintaining the normal diplomatic, economic and social relations with a country that has
been isolated for such a long period of time. Although effects of such a policy may be difficult to determine in the
short term, promoting democracy and improving human rights in Cuba are long-term solutions. As discussed
above, engagement with the Cuban government and society, along with support from the international community,
will provide the spark and guidance for the Cuban people to support and promote democracy, and thus give greater
attention to human rights violations.§ 5. Conclusions:Instead of continued economic sanctions on Cuba, the United
States should reopen diplomatic relations with Cuba, work multilaterally and use soft power to promote
democracy and greater attention to human rights. This policy approach will decrease the hostility between the
United States and Cuba, and cause Cuba to be more willing to participate internationally with attention to human
rights violations. After the end of the Cold War, United States foreign policy has found new directions, and the
embargo, as a relic of a different time, must be removed should the United States wish to gain any true ground in
promoting human rights in Cuba.
Eliminating the travel ban would not only improve the US image but also benefit both economies
Berman 09 (Howard Berman, lobbyist and former U.S. Representative, last serving California's 28th congressional district,
serving in Congress from 1983 to 2013, November 20, 2009, From the Hearing of the House foreign affairs committee, “Is it time
to lift the ban on travel to Cuba?” http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ )
the travel ban, the economic embargo does not implicate the fundamental human rights of U.S. citizens. Today, we will focus on whether we
should scrap the restrictions on Americans traveling to Cuba. The travel ban has prevented contact between Cubans and ordinary Americans
who serve as ambassadors for the democratic values we hold dear. Such contact would help break Havana's chokehold on information about the
outside world, and it would contribute to improving the image of the United States, particularly in Latin America, where the
Unlike
U.S. embargo on Cuba remains a centerpiece of anti-Washington grievances. Proponents of the travel ban argue that we should not make any change in the law without a reciprocal gesture from the Cuban regime.
Letting U.S. citizens travel to Cuba is not a gift to the Castros, it is in our national interest.
allowing
Americans to travel to Cuba would put money in the hands of the Castros, but the reality is that a significant portion of these funds would also aid the
I believe it is a huge mistake to treat the travel issue in this manner.
Waiting for a concession from Havana before we do something on behalf of our own citizens perversely puts the Cuban government in charge of that decision. I understand the concern that
underground economy , and the small self-employed sector, strengthening an important foundation of
independence from Cuba's authoritarian regime. At the end of the day, the importance of depriving the Castro regime of
some additional financial resources is far outweighed by our interests in accelerating the spread of democratic
ideas and supporting the development of a healthy civil society in Cuba. For too long our policy decisions
about Cuba, including the travel ban, have centered on hurting the Castro regime, rather than helping the Cuban
people. But this has led to the worst possible outcome. In an effort to make the Castros feel the sting, we have
made the Cuban people cry. It is time to make the well-being of the Cuban people the driving force behind our policy toward the island. Lifting the travel ban will
benefit both U.S. and Cuban citizens . We need to let Americans be beacons of hope; they will bring freedom with
them. Let thousands of U.S. visitors chip away at the Castro information monopoly with thousands of small cuts. Let the residents of 19 U.S. cities actually travel to their sister cities in Cuba. Let Americans and
Cubans openly discuss human rights, and market- based economics and Hollywood movies on streets, beaches and in cafes throughout Cuba, and take the U.S. government out of the
business of deciding what should be discussed and which Americans should do the talking. The freedom to travel
is an important thread running throughout American history, from the settlement to the west, to the road trips
inspired by the author Jack Kerouac, to the exploration of outer space. The Cuba travel ban is squarely at odds with this uniquely American value, and constitutes a
disturbing infringement on the right of our citizens to freedom of speech , association and to travel. Except under the most
extreme circumstances, the government has no business telling us where we should go, or with whom we should talk. It is
beyond absurd that the Treasury Department through a humiliating and Kafkaesque licensing process is in the position of deciding which
American church groups can and cannot visit religious leaders on the island, and which of our artists and
musicians are allowed to collaborate freely with their Cuban counterparts. This is big-brother government at its worst.
If the travel ban is lifted, it will help Americans drastically
Nowrasteh 12 (Alex, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, B.A. in
Economics from George Mason University, Oct 16, 2012, “Lifting the Cuban Travel Ban Is Good for U.S.”,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ )
In mid-January, the Cuban government will cease requiring exit
visas and invitations from foreign nationals so Cubans can leave. It’s unclear how the new plan will be applied in practice. The Cuban government’s
This morning the Cuban government announced reforms of its 52 year old travel ban.
announcement might not be as welcome as people hope, but this is a substantial change in rhetoric. My colleague Juan Carlos Hidalgo wrote about how such an approach would affect Cubans here.
Assuming the travel ban is mostly or entirely lifted, this policy change will also affect Americans in numerous ways.
First, the United States has a unique immigration policy for Cubans. Known as the wet foot/dry foot policy, if a Cuban reaches American soil he or she is allowed to gain permanent residency within a year. If a
Cuban is captured at sea, he or she is returned to Cuba unless they cite fears of persecution. This means that most Cubans who want to leave, with the exception of
violent or other criminal offenders, will be able to stay in the United States if they are able to make it to American
soil. No other nationality in nearly a century, except the Hungarians in the 1950s, has been subject to such a generous policy. Because of their unique legal-immigration status, the Cuban-born population living in
the United States was excluded from estimates of unauthorized immigrants and very few of them are likely in violation of any immigration laws. Second, the United States is the number
one destination abroad for Cubans. Additionally, nearly 60 percent of Cuban-Americans were born abroad compared to less than 40 percent for all other Hispanic groups.
Cubans tend to be older, more likely to own homes and businesses, more geographically concentrated in Florida,
more educated, wealthier, and have fewer children than other Hispanic immigrant groups. They are overwhelmingly positive for
the American economy. Third, Florida has been the main destination and beneficiary of Cuban immigration since the
19th century. Ybor City, a section of Tampa, owes its birth and development to Cuban and Spanish-born entrepreneurs like Ignacio Haya and Vincente Martinez Ybor who made the city a cigar
manufacturing powerhouse by the early 20th century. For generations, Ybor City was known as Little Havana. In addition to the tobacco trade, Cuban-American entrepreneurs in Ybor City also specialized in legal
services, accounting offices, real estate development companies, and advertising. Restaurants have probably had the biggest impact on the habits of Americans. The Columbia Restaurant, currently Florida s oldest
restaurant, was opened by Cuban- born Casimiro Hernandez in 1905. It started as a small corner cafe serving authentic Cuban sandwiches and café con leche and has since expanded to seven other locations. The
Cubans excelled at opening small businesses and revitalizing large sections of the city that had
begun to decay. Ever since the earliest Cubans came to America, they haven t wasted any time in their pursuit of
the American dream. Fourth, Cuban immigration to Florida has not lowered the wages for Americans working there.
situation was similar in Miami where
According to an authoritative peer-reviewed paper written by Berkeley labor economist David Card, the sudden immigration of 125,000 Cubans on the famed Mariel boatlift in 1980 increased the size of Miami s
A massive and
sudden increase in labor supply did not lower wages for Americans or increase their unemployment . Miami businesses rapidly
expanded production to account for the influx of new consumers and workers and Cuban immigrants started businesses with a gusto, thus creating their
total labor market by 7 percent and the size of its Cuban workforce by 20 percent. For non-Cubans in Miami with similar skills, wages were remarkably stable from about 1979-1985.
own employment opportunities. Cuba’s reform of the travel ban could reignite Cuban immigration . In 2011,
roughly 40,000 Cubans gained legal permanent residency and refugee status in the United States. That number
could increase dramatically if the Cuban government truly got out of the way and let its people move toward
relative freedom and economic opportunity. Beginning in mid-January, assuming U.S. policy does not change (an unlikely scenario given that neither political party wants to
upset the politically influential Cuban community in South Florida), we could witness a large new wave of Cuban immigration to the United States. Despite entertaining movies like Scarface, the long run
Cuban-Americans reveal a pattern of success and
achievement similar to other contemporary immigrant groups and those in our country s past. Immigrants are
more successful in the United States than their former countrymen left behind. American capitalist institutions are the main cause of this, but
it’s also because immigrants are overwhelmingly committed to economic advancement and the hard work that takes. If Cuba truly lifts the travel ban, it will be a blessing
for all Cubans. Many of them will likely immigrate to the United States, which will also be good for us.
consequences of the Marial boatlift have been good for Americans, Cuban immigrants, and Florida.
Cuba US embargo causes $1 Trillion in losses
Portia Siegelbaum 9/14/11 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20106159-503543.html
Cuba blames the U.S. embargo for nearly a trillion dollars in losses to the island's economy since it was imposed by
President Kennedy in 1962.
Vice Foreign Minister Abelardo Moreno said that at current prices a conservative estimate of economic damages to
the island up until December 2010 would be more than $104 billion. However, he added, if you take into
consideration the extreme devaluation of the dollar against the price of gold on the international financial market
during 2010, they would add up to nearly a trillion dollars.
Cuba will be presenting a resolution at the current U.N. General Assembly on the "Necessity of ending the economic,
commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba."
This will be the 20th time the same resolution is put to a vote there. It has repeatedly been approved by the
international community. Last year's vote was: 185 countries in favor to 2 -- the United States and Israel -- against.
Speaking to journalists in Havana, Moreno insisted the embargo violates international law and the U.N. Charter, and
constitutes genocide according to the 1948 Geneva Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide.
Yesterday President Obama authorized the continuation of the embargo for another year under the Trading with the
Enemy Act, stating that it is in "the national interest of the United States" to do so.
Moreno particularly attacked the extra-territoriality of the embargo listing various fines imposed by the U.S. on third
country entities such as a $500 million fine against the Dutch Bank ABN Amro last year for "having carried out
unauthorized financial transactions in which Cuba or Cuban Nationals had interests."
The vice foreign minister noted that in all from March 2010 to April 2011 there were several multimillion dollar fines
levied against U.S. and foreign banking institutions for having conducted operations with Cuba.
He also noted the embargo interfered with Cuba's cooperation with international agencies giving the example of
how in January 2011, the U.S. Government seized over $4.2 million of funding from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria because they were earmarked for the implementation of cooperation projects with
Cuba.
Freedom of Travel
Liberty Outweighs
No value to life under government coercion
Raz, Philosopher, 1986
(Joseph, The Morality of Freedom, page 307)
One way to test the thesis of the primacy of action reasons is to think of a person who is entirely passive and is
continuously led, cleaned, and pumped full with hash, so that he is perpetually content, and wants nothing but to
stay in the same condition. It’s a familiar imaginary horror. How do we rank the success of such a life? It is not the
worst life one can have. It is simply not a life at all. It lacks activity, it lacks goals. To the extent that one is tempted
to judge it more harshly than that and to regard it as a ‘negative life’ this is because of the wasted potentiality. It is
a life which could have been and was not. We can isolate this feature by imagining that the human being concerned
is mentally and physically effected in a way which rules out the possibility of a life with any kind of meaningful
pursuit in it. Now it is just not really a life at all. This does not preclude one from saying that it is better than human
life. It is simply sufficiently unlike human life in the respects that matter that we regard it as only a degenerate case
of human life. But clearly not being alive can be better than that life.
Extinction is justified to protect liberty
Shue, 89 – Professor of Ethics and Public Life at Princeton University (Henry, Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint,
p. 64-5)
The issue raises interesting problems about obligations among generations. What obligations do we owe to future
generations whose very existence will be affected by our risks? A crude utilitarian calculation would suggest that
since the pleasures of future generations may last infinitely (or until the sun burns out), no risk that we take to
assure certain values for our generation can compare with almost infinite value in the future. Thus we have no
right to take such risks. In effect, such an approach would establish a dictatorship of future generations over the
present one. The only permissible role for our generation would be biological procreation. If we care about other
values in addition to survival, this crude utilitarian approach produces intolerable consequences for the current
generation. Moreover, utility is too crude a concept to support such a calculation. We have little idea of what utility
will mean to generations very distant from ours. We think we know something about our children, and perhaps our
grandchildren, but what will people value 8,000 years from now? If we do not know, then there is the ironic
prospect that something we deny ourselves now for the sake of a future generation may be of little value to them. A
more defensible approach to the issue of justice among generations is the principle of equal access. Each generation
should have roughly equal access to important values. We must admit that we shall not be certain of the detailed
preferences of increasingly distant generations, but we can assume that they will wish equal chances of survival. On
the other hand, there is no reason to assume that they would want survival as a sole value any more than the
current generation does. On the contrary, if they would wish equal access to other values that give meaning to life,
we could infer that they might wish us to take some risks of species extinction in order to provide them equal
access to those values. If we have benefited from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," why should we assume that the next generation would want only life?
Moral Obligation
The United States is a free society and has a moral obligation to remove the travel ban
Cuba Study Group, non-profit and non-partisan organization studying Cuba, 2008
(“Lifting Restrictions on Travel and Remittances to Cuba: A Case for Unilateral Action,”
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7e4643ab-af81-4a8c-9872-5ab497a76617)
The failed policies of the Cuban regime have relegated Cuban society to a generalized state of poverty, resulting in
human suffering and the separation of Cuban families. As a free society, the United States should not contribute to this separation
by restricting or regulating human relationships. Nor should the United States impose additionajnl emotional
suffering or undue economic deprivation on Cuba’s people. Current travel and remittance restrictions contravene
each of these principles and are inconsistent with American values. ¶ The Cuba Study Group believes that all U.S. persons
(citizens and residents) should be allowed to travel freely to Cuba, just as they are free to travel to all other countries in the world.
Authorizing travel to Cuba would serve a humanitarian purpose and would help reunite families divided by this long conflict.
Travel—particularly purposeful travel that includes artistic, religious and educational exchanges—would also facilitate freer flows of ideas
and would help to empower civil society. Even tourists can positively contribute to such processes of exchange.
Likewise, lifting remittance restrictions would provide much-needed relief to many Cubans and would reduce
their dependence on the regime.¶ Current restrictions on travel and remittances are not only counterproductive
to the goal of promoting peaceful change in Cuba, but they are also completely out of step with the times .
Proponents of these policies are increasingly isolated, and strong majorities of Cuban Americans—not to mention pro-Democracy activists on the island itself—
oppose these measures. The Cuba Study Group calls
on the White House and Congress to jointly work to remove all restrictions
on travel and remittances to Cuba.
American’s should have the right to travel to Cuba
Ruiz 13 (Albor, Columnist at New York Daily News from 1993-present, 4/10/2013, “Cuba ban looks crazy right
now”, page 36, http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ )
I don't know about you but I sympathize - no, really - with Cuban-American U.S. Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Díaz-Balart who have expressed
great "concern" about Beyonce's and Jay Z's recent trip to Cuba for their fifth wedding anniversary. I mean, everyone
knows both Miami
Republican members of Congress are great patriots who would not simply look the other way when a famous
couple such as Beyonce and Jay Z engages in activities that could put U.S. national security at risk - like, well,
visiting Cuba in possible violation of the travel ban that has been in place for as long as anybody can remember.
"We would like to respectfully request, within all applicable rules and guidelines, information regarding the type of license that Beyonce and Jay-Z received, for
what purpose, and who approved such travel," the lawmakers wrote to Adam Szubin, director of the United States' Office of Foreign Assets Control. Imagine
this: While
in Cuba, the megastars - who were literally mobbed by friendly crowds - had the audacity to visit Old Havana, and
have dinner at La Guarida, the famed, privately owned, restaurant where the ground-breaking anti-homophobic movie Fresa y
Chocolate (Strawberry and Chocolate) was filmed. As if that wasn't enough, Beyonce and Jay-Z attended a performance by La Colmenita, a renowned children's
theatre ensemble that visited the U.S. last year over the strenuous objections of the very same Ross-Lehtinen and Díaz-Balart. And to top it all, the musical
couple danced the night away at the legendary Havana nightclub El Gato Tuerto. No doubt, these people are dangerous... Come on, let's be serious. As someone
posted on Facebook referring to the two Florida Republicans: "They must have a lot of time in their hands. Too bad they don't use it to resolve our budgetary
and immigration problems." Yes, too bad, because the
truth is that never has the absurdity of the travel ban policy been more
evident than after the famous couple visit to Cuba. And never has the ridiculousness of elected officials "indignantly" demanding, in this
day and age, an investigation of the American artists' trip been more obvious.
Thankfully not every politician lives in the past in regards to Cuba, as another
Republican, Arizona congressman Jeff Flake, made clear
in a twitter message: "So, @Beyonce and Jay-Z @S_C_ are in Cuba? Fine by me . Every American should have the right to travel there ."
Yes, they should. Yet, Ros-Lehtinen's and Díaz-Balart's attempt to continue undermining the Constitutional right of Americans to free travel could blow up in
their faces. Because if anything is clear, it is that the
trip of the famous couple to Havana has exposed the travel ban as what it
is: a senseless , anachronistic and anti-democratic policy , contrary to U.S. interests and values. "The Beyonce
effect is a call to take a fresh look at the U.S. policy toward Cuba," said Arturo López-Levy, a Cuban-American expert on
Cuba and International Studies lecturer at the University of Denver. "It is difficult to defend a policy that stomps on the same rights it
preaches. "Since the migratory reforms made by Cuba in January that eliminated most of the restrictions on travel from the totalitarian period, Cubans
under a Communist regime have fewer legal impediments to visiting the U.S. than U.S. citizens have to visiting
Cuba," López-Levy said. Hopefully, as we have said before, the irony won't escape President Obama, who should finally do everything in his
power to bury for good that political zombie which for 50 years has passed for a U.S.-Cuba policy.
The Cuban embargo has no chance of working, Americans should be able to travel there
Wickham 10 (DeWayne, columnist for USA today and Capitol Hill correspondent for U.S. News and World Report, October 11,
2010, “Change of guard is a good time to end Cuba embargo”,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ )
I don't know what, if any, advice James Jones, the White House's outgoing national security adviser, will give his successor. But the retired Marine Corps general
ought to tell Tom Donilon that the
United States needs to end its Cold War rift with Cuba. More than a diplomatic annoyance, this nation's
2009, for
the 18th consecutive year, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for an end to the U.S. trade
embargo against Cuba. The measure was backed by 187 countries, including all of America's European allies. Iraq and Afghanistan,
two governments that owe their very existence to the U.S., also voted for it. Only three countries (the U.S., Israel and Palau) voted
against the resolution. Two others abstained. And the Organization of American States (OAS) voted last year to rescind its 1962 ban on Cuba's
nearly half-century-old effort to strangle the life out of Cuba's communist government infects its relationship with much of the rest of the world. In
membership in the hemispheric group. Schizophrenic policy Moments after the vote was taken, then-Honduran President Manuel Zelaya proclaimed: "The Cold
War has ended." Of course, it actually ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. That ideological tug-of-war lasted 46 years. What Zelaya was talking
about is this nation's schizophrenic attempt to isolate and topple Cuba's communist government. That has gone on for 50 years. The OAS vote was a further
decline of American influence in a region of the world over which it once held sway. And while this waning influence can be attributed to a lot more than this
country's frayed relations with Cuba, America's obsession with the Caribbean island nation of 11 million people chips away at this country's standing in the
world. Barack
Obama is the 11th American president to manage this effort, which seeks to squeeze the life out of
Cuba's government through an economic embargo that has no chance of succeeding. That's because while Cuban-American
politicians and interest groups clamor for the continuation of the ban on travel and money transfers to Cuba, Cuban Americans are exempt. They can go to Cuba
as often as they like and take as much money to their relatives there as they want. So for all practical purposes, the
embargo exists for domestic
political purposes only. It is what a long line of politicians - Democrats and Republicans - have used to pander to Cuban-American voters. Donilon
should tell Obama that the damage done to America's standing in the world outweighs the political benefit he gets in
south Florida for keeping the embargo in place. He should urge the president to test the resiliency of Cuba's
communist system by allowing all Americans to travel freely to that country . He should remind Obama of what I'm sure he
already knows: Cuba's communist system is undergoing change. The government has created the opportunity for private When it comes to freedom,
the world pays more attention to what America does than what it says . The list of privately run businesses will
likely increase after the Cuban government's announcement that it will lay off 500,000 workers who must now find work in the country's embryonic
private sector. A surge of American tourists will strengthen this movement. A continuation of the U.S. embargo will
slow it down - and whittle away at America's position on the world stage.
The travel ban is infringing on America’s right to travel, lifting the travel ban would solve
Paul 13 (Ron, April 15, representative for Texas, Why can’t we all travel to Cuba?, http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2013/04/15/why-cant-we-all-travel-tocuba/)
Earlier this month, entertainers Jay-Z and Beyoncé were given a license by the US government to travel to Cuba. Because it
is not otherwise legal for
Americans to travel to Cuba, this trip was only permitted as a “cultural exchange” by the US Treasury Department. Many suspect that the
permission was granted at least partly due to the fame, wealth, and political connections of the couple. Some Members of Congress who continue to support
the failed Cuba embargo, demanded that the Administration explain why these two celebrities were allowed to visit Cuba. The trip looked suspiciously like
tourism, they argued in a letter to the White House, and American tourism is still not allowed in Cuba. They were photographed eating at the best restaurants,
dancing, and meeting with average Cubans, which these Members of Congress frowned on. Perhaps it is true that this couple used their celebrity status and ties
to the White House to secure permission to travel, but the real question is, why can’t the rest of us go? The
Obama administration has lifted
some of the most onerous restrictions on travel to Cuba imposed under the previous Bush administration, but for
the average American, travel to the island is still difficult if not impossible. However, even those who are permitted to go to Cuba
are not allowed to simply engage in tourist activities — to spend their money as they wish or relax on a beach. The US government demands that the few
Americans it allows to travel to Cuba only engage in what it deems “purposeful travel,” to “support civil society in Cuba; enhance the free flow of information to,
from, and among the Cuban people; and help promote their independence from Cuban authorities.” They must prove that they maintain a full-time schedule of
educational activities, according to Treasury guidelines for “people-to-people” travel. Leave it to the federal government to make the prospect of visiting that
sunny Caribbean island sound so miserable. The
reason the US so severely restricts and scripts the activities of the few
Americans allowed to travel to Cuba is that it believes travel must promote the goal of taking “important steps in
reaching the widely shared goal of a Cuba that respects the basic rights of all its citizens.” Although I have no illusions about
the Cuban government – or any government for that matter — it is ironic that the US chose to locate a prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba because the indefinite
detention and torture that took place there would have been illegal on US soil. Further, the US government continues to hold more than 100 prisoners there
indefinitely even though they have not been found guilty of a crime and in fact dozens are “cleared for release” but not allowed to leave. Does the
administration really believe that the rest of the world is not annoyed by its “do as we say, not as we do” attitude? We are told by supporters of the Cuba
embargo and travel ban that we must take such measures to fight the communists in charge of that country. Americans must be prohibited from traveling to
Cuba, they argue, because tourist dollars would only be used to prop up the unelected Castro regime. Ironically,
our restrictive travel policies
toward Cuba actually mirror the travel policies of the communist countries past and present. Under communist
rule in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere it was only the well-connected elites who were allowed to travel
overseas – people like Jay-Z and Beyoncé. The average citizen was not permitted the right. Although the current
administration’s slight loosening of the restrictions is a small step in the right direction, it makes no sense to
continue this nearly half-century old failed policy. Freedom to travel is a fundamental right. Restricting this
fundamental right in the name of human rights is foolish and hypocritical.
Plan Key
Passing the FTCA would lift the travel ban
Ruiz 9 (Albor, February 14, writer for the NY Daily News, Passage to Cuba may open with new legislation, http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/passagecuba-open-new-legislation-article-1.391397)
Banned for almost 50 years, legal travel to Cuba could become a reality for all Americans in the coming months. That is the
purpose of the Freedom
to Travel to Cuba Act introduced in the House of Representatives on Feb. 4 by Congressmen Bill Delahunt (D-Mass) Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). It calls for
lifting the 1963 travel ban on Cuba - the only country in the world Americans are forbidden to visit. Approving the
bill would begin to restore some sanity to U.S. policy towards the Caribbean island after 46 years of failure and
hostility. In 2004 former President George Bush tightened the ban to the point of absurdity. For one, Bush restricted visits by Cuban-Americans to relatives
on the island to once every three years and only to parents, spouses, children and siblings. Cash remittances were limited to $300 every three months and only
to the most immediate family. Close relatives such as aunts and cousins cannot be legally visited, not to mention friends. "It
is shameful when the
most basic of human values, the rights of families to be together and visit each other whenever they desire, is superceded by political
shenanigans. No government has the right to separate families," said Silvia Wilhelm, executive director of the Cuban-American Commission for Family
Rights. But what is most striking about the current policy is its gratuitous cruelty. Believe it or not, it makes no provision for "humanitarian" visas. For example, if
your mother is dying on the island, and you visited her six months ago, there is no legal way you can return before 2-1/2 years to say a last goodbye - or even to
bury her. Talk about family values. The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act also prohibits the President from regulating or forbidding travel to or from the island by
U.S. citizens and legal residents, except in times of war between the two countries or of imminent danger to public health or the safety of U.S. travelers. After
Bush's obsessive enmity towards Cuba, this is a welcome provision. Right now, Americans without family on the island are simply not allowed to travel unless
authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. Full-time professionals conducting research and full-time journalists on assignment are exempt. Otherwise,
current restrictions apply to all citizens and residents of the U.S. - no matter what country you travel to Cuba from and no matter if you hold dual citizenship.
Yet, under President Obama there is hope for real change. "We've been engaged in a failed policy with Cuba for the last 50 years ,"
candidate Obama told a crowd while in Miami. He went on to promise "unrestricted rights" regarding travel and money remittances to the island for CubanAmericans. The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act takes Obama's promise one step further. The
bill calls for ending the ban for all Americans,
not only those of Cuban origin. Also during his campaign Obama proclaimed his willingness to meet Cuban president Raúl Castro. Lifting the
travel ban could open a door to dialogue, trade and cooperation in areas of mutual interest such as drug
trafficking and human smuggling. "Our people would be better off and our diplomats could develop the trust they
need to bring our countries together," said Sara Stephens of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, a group working to change U.S. policy
toward Latin America by mutual respect and dialogue. Tell Congress to pass the Freedom to Travel Act and let if become the beginning of a new relationship
with Cuba.
Passing the FTCA would start new relations between the US and Cuba
Sosa 9 (Ignacio, April 10, Writer for the Washington Times, Time to Lift the Travel Ban, http://www.righttotraveltocuba.org/news/time-to-lift-travel-bans)
There is much anticipation that President Obama will use the April 17-19 Summit of the Americas to announce the lifting of Cuba travel and family-remittance
restrictions for Cuban-Americans. Although a welcome step toward crafting a common-sense U.S. policy toward Cuba, it is not enough. As a Cuban American, I
benefit from the removal of these restrictions but am uncomfortable that my fellow Americans are denied the right to travel to Cuba by virtue of not having
relatives living on the island. Moreover, Cuba
is the only country to which our government restricts travel by American
citizens, a policy that makes little geopolitical sense. One might think Cuban-Americans oppose lifting travel
restrictions for all Americans, but the evidence suggests otherwise. A December poll by Florida International
University showed that 67 percent of all Cuban-Americans support unrestricted travel to Cuba by all Americans.
This is a substantial increase over the 55 percent who favored removing such restrictions when the same question was asked by the university in March 2007.
Congress appears to be listening. The House and Senate have each introduced legislation titled “The
Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act, which
proposes to lift all restrictions on travel to Cuba by American citizens. The proposed act has garnered an impressive 121 co-sponsors
in the House and 18 in the Senate from across the ideological spectrum. Passage of the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act would be an
important step in lessening the isolation of the Cuban people at a time of change on the island. Isolation is also a
two-way street, and the current travel restrictions have isolated the United States from Cubans likely to play
leadership roles in a post-Castro Cuba. We do not know how the Castro regime will respond to a unilateral lifting of American travel restrictions.
However, such a move, at minimum, will heighten existing pressure on the Cuban government to grant greater freedom for its citizens to travel abroad. The
Cuban government's response is not as important as ensuring that U.S. policy on Cuba is consistent with our values and possessive of common-sense objectives.
The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act is an important opportunity to end the isolation of the American and Cuban
people from each other and bring new thinking to our relations with Cuba . All Americans should support passage of this
important legal initiative. Ignacio Sosa serves on the board of directors of several Cuba-related charities.
Key to democracy
Freedom of association is key to democracy
Petersson 10 [Maret Petersson, Kingston University, London, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Author of “The right to freedom of association is
recognised as ‘one of the foundations of a functioning democracy, and its protection is crucial for creating a tolerant society in which groups with different
beliefs, practices or policies can exist peacefully together,’” http://www.academia.edu/254140/The_right_to_freedom_of_association__one_of_the_foundations_of_a_functioning_democracy_and_its_protection_is_crucial_for_creating_a_tolerant_society_in_which_groups_with_different_beli
efs_practices_or_policies_can_exist_peacefully_together_ , Published in March 2010]
Second, because freedom of association supports a pluralistic society in which different viewpoints, opinions,
and ideas can be expressed, discussed, represented and defended, it is a necessary precondition for and does
support a functioning democracy . Basically, it is the legal basis for civil society and civic engagemen t (McBridge
2005). In this sense it allows citizens, as electorate, to gather information about political and social organisations
and their understanding of problems and possible solutions, and based on this to develop their own
understanding, take a stance, and form a political will and ultimately to make an informed voting decision. Also,
associations can help citizens to develop a sense of political efficacy and civic values, and participation in an
association can foster political skills and cognitive capacities necessary for critical thinking and judgment(Kohn
2002: 290).Third, freedom of association allows individuals to come together as a political party. This is extremely
important if people think their views and needs are not appropriately represented in the political realm. More
parties means more plurality in the political sphere, in policy and in parliament. That way all groups of society and
their interests are represented and have the possibility to be taken into consideration. Only if individuals sharing
certain ideas and interests can gather, can they represent their opinions in the wider society, and ultimately gain
recognition, for instance via laws and legislation. Since all people have the possibility to express their opinions this
way, freedom of association can be seen as a form of direct democracy ( OSCE 2007: 20). It is indeed a dialogue
between citizens, and between citizens and political leaders, and some associations create “avenues for direct
participation in the regulation or production of public goods such as education, public safety, and the provision of
social welfare” (Fung 2003: 516). For example, political parties constantly generate new politicians and therefore
provide the human resources necessary to run the country. Other associations support and help the state to provide
for example social welfare.
Freedom of association is essential to the democratic way of life
Emerson 64 [THOMAS I. EMERSON, a legal theorist who was a major architect of civil liberties laws, Author of
“FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION,” The Yale Law Journal, Volume 74, Number 1, Page 1,
Published in November 1954.]
Freedom of association has always been a vital feature of American society.¶ In modem times it has assumed even
greater importance. More and more¶ the individual, in order to realize his own capacities or to stand up to the
institutionalized forces that surround him, has found it imperative to join with¶ others of like mind in pursuit of
common objectives. His freedom to do so¶ is essential to the democratic way of life . At the same time the
exercise of¶ this freedom has given rise to novel and troublesome problems. Organizations¶ have grown in size and
power, and organizational techniques have achieved¶ a new order of effectiveness. These associations have been
strenuously resisted¶ at times by other private groups, or sought to be regulated or curbed by¶ government
authority. At another level the rights of individual members and¶ minority groups within these centers of private
power have come to be a¶ matter of growing concern. And likewise the position of the individual who¶ does not
belong, and who does not wish to be forced into association, has¶ raised the problems of defining an area of
personal freedom into which neither¶ government nor private organizational power may intrude.¶ No one can doubt
that freedom of association, as a basic mechanism of the¶ democratic process, must receive constitutional
protection, and that limitations on such a fundamental freedom must be brought within the scope of¶
constitutional safeguards. The courts have in the past recognized this need¶ and have dealt with many aspects of
associational activity in terms of constitutional right and power. But recently the issues have taken new and
complex¶ forms. And constitutional doctrine in the area of freedom of association has¶ assumed an unprecedented
importance
Violates Amendment
The travel ban violates US freedom amendment
CSG ’08 (Cuba Study Group, a non-profit, non-partisan organization comprised of business and community leaders of
Cuban descent who share a common interest and vision of a free and democratic Cuba. “Lifting Restrictions on
Travel and Remittances to Cuba: A Case for Unilateral Action”, Pg. 4-5, December 10, 2008.
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7e4643ab-af81-4a8c-9872-5ab497a76617 )
Existing travel restrictions are unethical, violate basic American freedoms and infringe upon international human
¶ rights.¶ The rights of free movement and reunification of the family are protected by international law. Article
13 of the ¶ Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that “everyone has the right to leave any country,
including his ¶ own, and to return to his country.” While it goes without saying that the Cuban regime routinely
violates this and ¶ many other provisions of the Universal Declaration—thereby furthering the separation and
suffering of Cuban ¶ families—U.S. policies should not violate these rights either.¶ In accordance with these
principles, we believe the right to travel should be protected for its own sake— not ¶ only for Cuban-Americans
seeking to reunite with their families, but also for all U.S. persons. We believe that ¶ restricting U.S. persons’ ability
to travel breaches the spirit of American civil liberties and is inconsistent with ¶ American principles of
freedom.Humanitarian reasons also compel a serious reassessment of current travel restrictions. Current
regulations ¶ separate families and cause emotional, psychological and economic harm. The Cuba Study Group does
not ¶ believe it is the Federal government’s business to regulate human relationships in this manner.
The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act would end the travel ban and would stop restriction on the
freedom of movement
HRW 9 ( Human Rights Watch, March 31, Statement by José Miguel Vivanco on the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act,
http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/31/statement-jos-miguel-vivanco-freedom-travel-cuba-act)
(Washington, DC) - Human Rights Watch fully supports the
Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act, which would end a decades-old travel
ban that violates international human rights law, has caused considerable suffering for families, and has failed completely to
bring change to Cuba. A report by Human Rights Watch, "Families Torn Apart," documented the terrible human cost of these restrictions and
found that they infringed upon the internationally recognized right to freedom of movement and violated the international
prohibition on the involuntary separation of families. Yet for all of its costs, this policy has proved completely ineffective when it comes
to pressuring the Cuban government to dismantle its repressive machinery. The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act is a
necessary first step in replacing an ineffective, unilateral policy toward Cuba with a more targeted, multilateral
approach.
Travel ban violates the 5th amendment—it’s not justified either (cuba specific)
CCR 10 – Nonprofit Legal Advocacy Organization in New York. Dedicated to Protecting US constitutional
and international human rights [Vincent Warren Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights,
Open Letter to President Obama regarding Travel to Cuba, 8/26/10,
http://ccrjustice.org/files/Cuba_Travel_Letter_to_Obama_82610.pdf]
The Supreme Court has recognized that the United States Constitution's substantive due process guarantees include a limitation on the
government's ability to restrict travel. Among other things, the Fifth Amendment requires that any restriction on
a
citizen's right to travel must be justified by a government interest important enough to outweigh
that right. In the past, the Court has sided with the U.S. government and upheld Cuba travel restrictions based on the government's argument
that "interests of national security" outweighed any right to travel to the island. However, since reimposing the travel restrictions
in 1982, the
U.S. government has consistently claimed that the restrictions on travel-related transactions are
intended to cut off the flow of hard currency to Cuba. 1 Whether such a governmental interest could
withstand constitutional challenge under even rational review, given the clear infringement of U.S. citizens'
right to international travel, is highly dubious- particularly when considered against the $600 million to $1 billion sent to Cuba in recent
years in the form of permissible remittances.2 While we support the Administration's changes concerning remittances last year as a matter of
principle and policy, the reality remains that a portion of that multi-million dollar export to the island nation inevitably returns to the Cuban state.
Thus, to limit currency flows to Cuba by strictly limiting travel-related transactions remains irrational
and unlikely
to achieve even the averred goal of causing regime change within the country.
Cuba travel violates the 5th specific
Mozer 11 (David Mozer, IBF, “Cuba Right to Travel: The Constitutional Case,’ 2011, http://www.ibike.org/cuba/ofac/law.htm, accessed
6/27/13, IS)
The arguments for rights of Americans to travel to Cuba are primarily grounded in amendments to
the U.S. Constitution. These expand out to include the rights of to travel abroad, to seek information
relevant to public issues through foreign travel, and to exchange information and views with people in
other countries; rights derived from the First and Fifth Amendments of the "Bill of Rights."¶ Before the
"Bill of Rights," in Anglo-Saxon law, the of the right to travel emerges at least as earl as the Magna Carta. Article 42 reads: ¶ It shall be lawful to any
person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in
time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of
the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.¶ In Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1948) at 499
-500, the United States Surpeme Court stated that: "Although the Court has not assumed to define `liberty' with any great precision, that term is not
confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it
cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective." ¶ In the U.S., the right to travel is derived from the synthesis of several rights. This
was quite well laid out in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) at 125-126.¶ "The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be
deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers
as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of
what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."¶ The case involved the Secretary of States refusal to
issue a passport because the plaintiff wouldn't file an affidavit regarding his political beliefs. In the majority (5-4) opinion Justice William Douglas
wrote"¶ The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due
process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law, that right was
emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. Chafee, Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how
deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well,
was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the
individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6
Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160. "Our nation," wrote Chafee, has thrived on the principle
that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he
pleases." Id. at 197.
Travel embargo violates our individual liberty
Thomson, 1/3 – (Wendy, “Air travel is a right”, TSA News, 1/3/13, http://tsanewsblog.com/8414/news/air-travel-is-a-right/)//AB
The Judge also sent a strong message as to the hurdle the DOJ would have to overcome regarding air travel: “ The
right to travel here
and abroad is an important constitutional right. To deny this right to a citizen . . . based on
inaccurate information without an effective means of redress would unconstitutionally burden the
right to travel. While the Constitution does not ordinarily agree the right to travel by any particular form of transportation, given that other
forms of travel usually remain possible, the fact remains that for international travel, air transport in these modern times is practically the only form
of transportation, travel by ship being prohibitively expensive or so it will be presumed at the pleading stage.” This isn’t exactly new, as so
eloquently stated in Kent v. Dulles (1958): “The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot
be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor
General. In Anglo-Saxon law, that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. Three Human Rights in the
Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom
of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as
well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a
livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or
reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.”
5th key to freedom
Postell, 07 – (“Securing Liberty: The Purpose and Importance of the Bill of Rights”, 12/14/07,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/12/securing-liberty-the-purpose-and-importance-of-the-billof-rights)//AB
There is one final question to be answered: Even if Madison believed that a bill of rights could be framed--as ours surely was--with
the intent of preventing the implication of powers not granted to the government by the
Constitution, what benefit could be gained by it? Was it not Madison who argued most forcefully that we cannot trust in
parchment barriers? The answer is that Madison indeed thought ambition would counteract ambition, to "oblige the
government to control itself" This was the idea of checks and balances. But it does not explain how the Founders proposed to safeguard individual
liberty from tyranny of the majority, rather than tyranny of the rulers over the ruled. The safeguard of individual liberty, Madison
reasoned, must
lie with the people themselves. It is the people who must be responsible for defending their
liberties. And a bill of rights, Madison and his colleagues finally concluded, might support public understanding and
knowledge of individual liberty that would assist citizens in the task of defending their liberties. A
bill of rights, they saw, could serve the noble purpose of public education and edification. As Madison confided to Jefferson,
"The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they
become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion." From this view, our first 10
amendments are still important today, in their text and substance, beyond their legal effect. They still call upon us to
study them for the sake of knowing our liberties and defending them from all encroachments. Although these amendments may be nothing more
than "parchment barriers," they can still provide a bulwark against encroachments on our rights. For as Hamilton wrote in Federalist 84, the
security of liberty, "whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion,
and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. And here, after all...must we seek for the only solid basis of all
our rights."
AT: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism reduces individuals to nothing, making them expendable
Christopher H. Schroeder, Professor of Law, Duke University; Visiting Professor of Law, UCLA 1985-86, 1986,
Columbia Law Review, Rights Against Risks, 86 Colum. L. Rev. 495
The anxiety to preserve some fundamental place for the individual that cannot be overrun by larger social
considerations underlies what H.L.A. Hart has aptly termed the "distinctively modern criticism of utilitarianism," 58
the criticism that, despite its famous slogan, "everyone [is] to count for one," 59 utilitarianism ultimately denies
each individual a primary place in its system of values. Various versions of utilitarianism evaluate actions by the
consequences of those actions to maximize happiness, the net of pleasure over pain, or the satisfaction of desires.
60 Whatever the specific formulation, the goal of maximizing some measure of utility obscures and diminishes the
status of each individual. It reduces the individual to a conduit, a reference point that registers the appropriate
"utiles," but does not count for anything independent of his monitoring function. 61 It also produces moral
requirements that can trample an individual, if necessary, to maximize utility, since once the net effects of a
proposal on the maximand have been taken into account, the individual is expendable. Counting pleasure and pain
equally across individuals is a laudable proposal, but counting only pleasure and pain permits the grossest
inequities among individuals and the [*509] trampling of the few in furtherance of the utility of the many. In
sum, utilitarianism makes the status of any individual radically contingent. The individual's status will be
preserved only so long as that status contributes to increasing total utility. Otherwise, the individual can be
discarded.
Individual liberty outweighs all other consequences.
Callahan, Fellow at the Institute of Society and Ethics, 1973
(Daniel, The Tyranny of Survival, Pages 91-93)
The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its evocative power. But abused it has been. In
the name of survival, all manner of social and political evils have been committed against the rights of individuals,
including the right to life. The purported threat of Communist domination has for over two decades, fueled the
drive of militarists for ever-larger defense budgets, no matter what the cost to other social needs. During World
War II, native Japanese Americans were herded, without due process of law, into detention camps. This policy was
later upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States (1944) in a general consensus that a threat to
national security can justify acts otherwise blatantly unjustifiable. The survival of the Aryan race was one of the
official legitimizations of Nazism. Under the banner of survival, the government of South Africa imposed a ruthless
apartheid, heedless of the most elementary human rights. The Vietnamese war has been one of the greatest of
the many absurdities tolerated in the name of survival, the destruction of villages in order to save them. But it is not
only in a political setting that survival has been evokes as a final and unarguable value. The main rationale B.F. Skinner offers in Beyond Freedom and Dignity for
the controlled and conditioned society is the need for survival. For Jaques Monod, in Chance and Necessity, survival requires that we overthrow almost all
known religious, ethical, and political system.
In genetics, the survival of the gene pool has been put forward as grounds for a
forceful prohibition of bearers of offensive genetic traits from marrying and beating children. Some have
suggested we do the cause of survival no good by our misguided medical efforts to find means to find means by
which those suffering from such common genetically based diseases as diabetes can live a normal life and thus
procreate more diabetics. In the field of population and environment, one can do no better than to cite Paul Ehrlich,
whose works have shown a high dedication to survival, and in its holy name a willingness to contemplate
governmentally enforced abortions and a denial of food to starving populations of nations which have not enacted
population-control policies For all these reasons, it is possible to counterpoise over against the need for survival a
"tyranny of survival." There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another
for the sake of survival, no rights, liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress. It is easy, of course, to
recognize the danger when survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. Dictators never talk about their
aggressions, but only about the need to defend the fatherland, to save it from destruction at the hands of its
enemies. But my point goes deeper than that. It is directed even at legitimate concern for survival, when that
concern is allowed to reach an intensity which would ignore, suppress or destroy other fundamental human rights
and values. The potential tyranny of survival as a value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, of wiping out all
other values. Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will
stop at nothing. We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. If, both biologically and psychologically, the
need for survival is basic to man, and if survival is the precondition for any and all human achievements, and if no
other rights make much sense without the premise of a right to life - then how will it be possible to honor and act
upon the need for survival without, in the process, destroying everything in human beings which makes them
worthy of survival. To put it more strongly, if the price of survival is human degradation, then there is no moral
reason why an effort should be make to ensure that survival. It would be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic
victories.
Utilitarianism can be manipulated to justify any atrocity – their framework condones mass
slaughter and results in nuclear conflict
Jim Holt, commentator for the BBC, writes frequently about politics and philosophy, August 5, 1995, New York
Times, “Morality, Reduced To Arithmetic,” p. Lexis
Can the deliberate massacre of innocent people ever be condoned? The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki on Aug. 6 and 9, 1945, resulted in the deaths of 120,000 to 250,000 Japanese by incineration and radiation
poisoning. Although a small fraction of the victims were soldiers, the great majority were noncombatants -- women,
children, the aged. Among the justifications that have been put forward for President Harry Truman’s decision to
use the bomb, only one is worth taking seriously -- that it saved lives. The alternative, the reasoning goes, was to
launch an invasion. Truman claimed in his memoirs that this would have cost another half a million American
lives. Winston Churchill put the figure at a million. Revisionist historians have cast doubt on such numbers. Wartime documents suggest that military planners expected around 50,000 American combat deaths
in an invasion. Still, when Japanese casualties, military and civilian, are taken into account, the overall invasion death toll on both sides would surely have ended up surpassing that from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Scholars will continue to argue over whether there were other, less catastrophic ways to force Tokyo to surrender. But given the fierce obstinacy of the Japanese militarists, Truman and his advisers had some
Would this
prospect have justified the intentional mass killing of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? In the debate over
the question, participants on both sides have been playing the numbers game. Estimate the hypothetical number
of lives saved by the bombings, then add up the actual lives lost. If the first number exceeds the second, then
Truman did the right thing; if the reverse, it was wrong to have dropped the bombs. That is one approach to the
matter -- the utilitarian approach. According to utilitarianism, a form of moral reasoning that arose in the 19th
century, the goodness or evil of an action is determined solely by its consequences. If somehow you can save 10
lives by boiling a baby, go ahead and boil that baby. There is, however, an older ethical tradition, one rooted in
Judeo-Christian theology, that takes a quite different view. The gist of it is expressed by St. Paul’s condemnation of
those who say, “Let us do evil, that good may come.” Some actions, this tradition holds, can never be justified by
their consequences; they are absolutely forbidden. It is always wrong to boil a baby even if lives are saved
thereby. Applying this absolutist morality to war can be tricky. When enemy soldiers are trying to enslave or kill us, the principle of self-defense permits us to kill them (though not to slaughter them once
grounds for believing that nothing short of a full-scale invasion or the annihilation of a big city with an apocalyptic new weapon would have succeeded. Suppose they were right.
they are taken prisoner). But what of those who back them? During World War II, propagandists made much of the “indivisibility” of modern warfare: the idea was that since the enemy nation’s entire economic and
social strength was deployed behind its military forces, the whole population was a legitimate target for obliteration. “There are no civilians in Japan,” declared an intelligence officer of the Fifth Air Force shortly
before the Hiroshima bombing, a time when the Japanese were popularly depicted as vermin worthy of extermination. The boundary between combatant and noncombatant can be fuzzy, but the distinction is not
meaningless, as the case of small children makes clear. Yet is wartime killing of those who are not trying to harm us always tantamount to murder? When naval dockyards, munitions factories and supply lines are
bombed, civilian carnage is inevitable. The absolutist moral tradition acknowledges this by a principle known as double effect: although it is always wrong to kill innocents deliberately, it is sometimes permissible to
attack a military target knowing some noncombatants will die as a side effect. The doctrine of double effect might even justify bombing a hospital where Hitler is lying ill. It does not, however, apply to Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. Transformed into hostages by the technology of aerial bombardment, the people of those cities were intentionally executed en masse to send a message of terror to the rulers of Japan. The practice
of ordering the massacre of civilians to bring the enemy to heel scarcely began with Truman. Nor did the bomb result in casualties of a new order of magnitude. The earlier bombing of Tokyo by incendiary weapons
What Hiroshima and Nagasaki did mark, by the unprecedented need for rationalization they
presented, was the triumph of utilitarian thinking in the conduct of war. The conventional code of noncombatant immunity -- a product of several
killed some 100,000 people.
centuries of ethical progress among nations, which had been formalized by an international commission in the 1920’s in the Hague -- was swept away. A simpler axiom took its place: since war is hell, any means
necessary may be used to end, in Churchill’s words, “the vast indefinite butchery.”
It is a moral calculus that, for all its logical consistency, offends our
deep-seated intuitions about the sanctity of life -- our conviction that a person is always to be treated as an end,
never as a means. Left up to the warmakers, moreover, utilitarian calculations are susceptible to bad-faith
reasoning: tinker with the numbers enough and virtually any atrocity can be excused in the national interest. In
January, the world commemorated the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, where mass slaughter was
committed as an end in itself -- the ultimate evil. The moral nature of Hiroshima is ambiguous by contrast. Yet in the
postwar era, when governments do not hesitate to treat the massacre of civilians as just another strategic option,
the bomb’s sinister legacy is plain: it has inured us to the idea of reducing innocents to instruments and morality
to arithmetic.
Solvency
Generic
Presidential permission solves without lifting the rest of the embargo
Barrios, CEO of the American Red Cross of Eastern Massachusetts, Fall/Winter 2011
(Jarrett, “People First: The Cuban Travel Ban, Wet Foot-Dry Foot and Why the Executive Branch Can and Should Begin Normalizing Cuba Policy,” Connecticut
Public Interest Law Journal, 11 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 1)
The Administration can and should discontinue travel restrictions
to the extent possible under TSREEA. In relevant part, the 2000
law's codification of twelve classes of travel prohibits wholesale elimination of the travel ban. Nonetheless, broad
discretion remains to open up
these categories to more US citizens desiring to travel to Cuba. This discretion permits a substantial reduction in
scope of this barrier to travel.¶ The authority of the executive branch under TSREEA to define which groups are
eligible within the extant twelve classes of licensees is substantial. The OFAC regulation-changes that followed the announcement of
President Barack Obama in January 2011 demonstrate the substantial powers reserved for the President's discretion. As part of these changes, Section
515.563 was amended to expand the specific license journalist category to permit freelance writers working on
"projects other than 'articles'." n132 This new language broadens substantially the types of persons who can travel under this category. Anyone can
be a freelance journalist; moreover, without the requirement that you have an article to be published, there is no check on such applicants or requirement that
they secure a publisher in advance, thus allowing for individuals to characterize their travel as journalistic without the need to seriously demonstrate such an
endeavor before or after such travel. n133¶ Other categories lend themselves to such "broad" interpretation, too. The
new general license for
religion, for example, permits "[r]eligious organizations located in the United States, including members and staff of such organizations, to
engage in the travel-related transactions" n134 As [*27] with the journalist example above, this category could be broadened to include
persons interested in religion and religious subjects in Cuba, but not affiliated with a church in the United States. Under the logic of the 2000 TSREEA legislation,
the category is preserved but widened to allow more participating members.¶ Also within OFAC discretion is the decision of
whether to require only general licenses in place of the more odious "specific license." The specific license requires an application review
and advance approval of travel by OFAC. By converting all categories currently classified as specific licenses into
general license categories-permissible under the 2000 legislation-more people could travel to Cuba with less
direct government oversight, reducing the administrative burden on the Treasury Department as well . n135¶ The
legality of this approach was endorsed by the United States General Accounting Office ("GAO") in a 2009 analysis for members of Congress.
n136 In relevant part, the report explains that the current laws still permit the President to authorize travel under the
general license for travelers currently required to apply for a specific license, including "for example, freelance journalists;
professional researchers undertaking research or professionals attending professional meetings and not qualifying for a general license; and enrolled students
and full-time employees of academic institutions participating in educational activities." n137 Further, the
GAO explains that the President
could increase the permissible daily spending limit on travelers visiting family in Cuba. n138¶ There are ample reasons why
the President should open up travel to Cuba: it supports the individual right to travel of U.S. citizens; it rejects
the ethically questionable and controversial strategy of resource denial to advance foreign policy objectives;
efforts to isolate Cuba have retarded efforts to grow civil society on the island; a majority of Cuban Americans
now support such repeal; and it is not fair policy to promote in the present political context . n139¶ It is time to try
alternatives that resoundingly endorse and enact the stated goal of supporting democracy on the island in a post-Cold War context. Travel by Americans
with continued economic sanctions [*28] represents the kind of "conditional engagement" that is best. The
engagement that comes in the form of people-to-people contacts represent the very best of bilateral
relationships to support the growth of a strong civil society, and-in the words of one advocacy group-"far
outweigh whatever financial benefits the Cuban regime may gain from the flow of people and resources." n140
Now is key to lift restrictions – wastes US money & key to spread democracy.
Hanson, Batten & Ealey ’13 (Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute. Dayne
Batten is affiliated with the University of North Carolina Department of Public Policy. Harrison Ealey is a financial
analyst. “It’s Time For the U.S. to End Its Senseless Embargo Of Cuba”, January 16, 2013.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/16/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-end-its-senseless-embargo-of-cuba/ )
For the first time in more than fifty years, Cuban citizens can travel abroad without permission from their
government. The move, part of a broader reform package being phased in by Raul Castro, underscores the
irrationality of America’s continuation of a five-decade old embargo.¶ While the embargo has been through several
legal iterations in the intervening years, the general tenor of the U.S. position toward Cuba is a hardline not-in-mybackyard approach to communism a la the Monroe Doctrine. The official position is outdated, hypocritical, and
counterproductive.¶ The Cuban embargo was inaugurated by a Kennedy administration executive order in 1960 as
a response to the confiscation of American property in Cuba under the newly installed Castro regime. The current
incarnation of the embargo – codified primarily in the Helms-Burton Act – aims at producing free markets and
representative democracy in Cuba through economic sanctions, travel restrictions, and international legal penalties.¶
Since Fidel Castro abdicated power to his brother Raul in 2008, the government has undertaken more than 300
economic reforms designed to encourage enterprise, and restrictions have been lifted on property use, travel,
farming, municipal governance, electronics access, and more. Cuba is still a place of oppression and gross human
rights abuse, but recent events would indicate the 11 million person nation is moving in the right direction.¶ Despite
this progress, the U.S. spends massive amounts of money trying to keep illicit Cuban goods out of the United
States. At least 10 different agencies are responsible for enforcing different provisions of the embargo, and
according to the Government Accountability Office , the U.S. government devotes hundreds of millions of dollars
and tens of thousands of man hours to administering the embargo each year.¶ At the Miami International Airport,
visitors arriving from a Cuban airport are seven times more likely to be stopped and subjected to further customs
inspections than are visitors from other countries. More than 70 percent of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control inspections each year are centered on rooting out smuggled Cuban goods even though the agency
administers more than 20 other trade bans. Government resources could be better spent on the enforcement of
other sanctions, such as illicit drug trade from Columbia, rather than the search for contraband cigars and rum.¶ At
present, the U.S. is largely alone in restricting access to Cuba. The embargo has long been a point of friction between
the United States and allies in Europe, South America, and Canada. Every year since 1992, the U.S. has been
publically condemned in the United Nations for maintaining counterproductive and worn out trade and migration
restrictions against Cuba despite the fact that nearly all 5,911 U.S. companies nationalized during the Castro
takeover have dropped their claims.¶ Moreover, since Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians can travel and conduct
business in Cuba unimpeded, the sanctions are rather toothless. The State Department has argued that the cost of
conducting business in Cuba is only negligibly higher because of the embargo. For American multinational
corporations wishing to undertake commerce in Cuba, foreign branches find it easy to conduct exchanges.¶ Yet,
estimates of the sanctions’ annual cost to the U.S. economy range from $1.2 to $3.6 billion, according to the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. Restrictions on trade disproportionately affect U.S. small businesses who lack the
transportation and financial infrastructure to skirt the embargo. These restrictions translate into real reductions in
income and employment for Americans in states like Florida, where the unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1
percent.¶ What’s worse, U.S. sanctions encourage Cuba to collaborate with regional players that are less friendly
to American interests. For instance, in 2011, the country inked a deal with Venezuela for the construction of an
underwater communications link, circumventing its need to connect with US-owned networks close to its shores.¶
Repealing the embargo would fit into an American precedent of lifting trade and travel restrictions to countries
who demonstrate progress towards democratic ideals. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were all offered
normal trade relations in the 1970s after preliminary reforms even though they were still in clear violation of several
US resolutions condemning their human rights practices. China, a communist country and perennial human rights
abuser, is the U.S.’s second largest trading partner, and in November, trade restrictions against Myanmar were
lessened notwithstanding a fifty year history of genocide and human trafficking propagated by its military
government.¶
The travel restrictions already lifted weren’t enough – full lift key
Amash ’12 (Brandon Amash, contributing writer for the Prospect Journal. “Evaluating the Cuban
Embargo”, July 23, 2012. http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/ )
The United States placed trade embargoes, economic sanctions, and travel bans on Cuba in an attempt to combat
the communist regime and human rights violations (Carter 334). Today, diplomatic relations with Cuba remain
extremely strained, although America’s embargo policy has tightened and relaxed in concert with its domestic
political climate. Most recently, President Obama has reversed “tighter restrictions on Cuban American family
travel and remittances,” as well as announcing “that U.S. telecommunications companies may seek licenses to do
business in Cuba” (Carter 336). However, despite the ever-evolving policy and the fluid international climate,
little progress has been made in improving the human rights situation in Cuba, let alone the overall promotion of
democratic ideals. The embargo policy is based on the idea “that economic denial will bring about continued
economic failure in Cuba, thereby creating popular dissatisfaction with the government while simultaneously
weakening the government’s ability to repress this popular dissent, leading to the destabilization of the regime and,
ultimately, its collapse” (Seaman 39). In the following section, I will explain how these objectives have not been
realized.
The travel ban contradicts the lessons of history – removing travel restrictions are key to spread
American influence throughout the region
Eaton 10 [Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.), retired United States Army General, Author of “The Cuba travel ban: 50
years of a bad idea,”
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/121197-the-cuba-travel-ban-50-years-of-a-bad-idea#ixzz2ZWxy21ga, Published
September 27th, 2010.]
This island nation 90 miles off our southern coast has long ceased to be belligerent, and all us should have the right
to resume a rational relationship with Cuba and to enter into legitimate cultural exchanges with a country that has
much to offer in the way of serious engagement. I believe Americans have quite a lot to offer Cuba — from a
robust display of American values, to our media and just plain old human contact. We would all benefit from
lifting the travel ban to Cuba. ¶ From a historical perspective, there is little basis for this ban. And there is
questionable constitutional support for continuing to deny American citizens the opportunity to travel only a short
distance to what is arguably a wonderful tourist destination that is dynamic in its own way and possesses one of the
world’s delightful cultures.¶ This policy is counterproductive and stands in stark contrast to our approach toward
other adversaries. For example, America isolated Vietnam following the conclusion of hostilities there. Yet, more
than a decade ago, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his son, Jack, paid a visit to the country where so many Americans
were lost and where the senator himself was imprisoned under conditions so severe that he still bears today the
impact of the torture he received there. Yet, despite this history, he still traveled there freely, and Americans today
enjoy cultural exchanges and tourism with Vietnam as they rightly have for years, benefitting both our countries.¶ A
little more than a year ago, I spent a month traveling in Vietnam with my brother, and I loved it. Our father was lost
in that war, which made the trip more compelling. So, there it is: from actual enemy with nearly 60,000 Americans
killed in action, to trading partner and tourist destination. And not once did my government try to prevent me from
traveling there. Both the United States and Vietnam are better off today because there is no travel ban.¶ I would like
to make a similar trip to Cuba.¶ The travel ban also contradicts the lessons of history. For example, we never
banned travel to the country that aided and armed our North Vietnam adversary and threatened us with nuclear
armageddon during the Cold War: the Soviet Union. At the height of the Cold War, any American could visit the
Soviet Union, including Russia. One could argue that travel reduced tensions between belligerents and added
meaning to the saying, “Hold your friends close. Hold your enemies closer.” One could also consider it is harder to
lob a nuclear weapon at someone with whom you have exchanged orchestras, dancers, athletes and tourists. (Cuba,
of course, poses essentially no military threat to the United States.)¶ Finally, let’s talk about Iran. No American is
prevented from traveling to this most historic land by his or her government, and Iran is a country that poses
serious challenges to U.S. interests today and supplies weapons that are killing Americans in neighboring
countries. This enlightened policy stands in stark contrast to that which we have toward Cuba, especially because it
has been a long time since Cuba challenged the United States in such a way, or threatened to cut off shipping lanes
to southern ports, or served as a Soviet outpost for air bases, missile fields or submarine pens. Americans can and
should be able to travel to Iran, and they can and should also be able to travel to Cuba. The Iran policy makes sense;
the Cuban policy does not.¶ This is a national-security issue under the rubric of common-sense engagement in our
own area of national interest. We need to reestablish the right to allow Americans to travel 90 miles to engage
with the culture that made Miami fun again. This is good for our country, good for the Cuban people and a smart
policy for our national security.
Generic “lift the embargo” card: Recent negotiations of the START agreement prove that the USCuban policy is an anachronism
Lloyd 10 [Delia Lloyd, Senior Policy Manager at the BBC's international development charity, BBC Media Action,
journalist, blogger, and perennial American expat, Author of “10 reasons to lift the Cuban Embargo,”
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/, Published August 24th, 2010]
It's out of date. To argue that U.S.-Cuban policy is an anachronism is putting it mildly. In an international climate
marked by cooperation on issues ranging from terrorism to global financial crises, holding on to this last vestige
of the Cold War foreign policy no longer makes sense . (Bear in mind that the young people now entering college
were not even alive when Czechoslovakia existed.) Sure, there's still tension between the United States and Russia.
But the recent renegotiation of the START agreement on nuclear proliferation reinforces the notion that the Cold
War is no longer the dominant prism for understanding that bilateral relationship, much less the Cuban-American
one.¶ 5. It doesn't work. Of course, if the embargo were the last outpost of Cold War politics and it produced
results, that might be an argument for continuing it. But scholars and analysts of economic sanctions have
repeatedly questioned the efficacy of economic statecraft against rogue states unless and until there's been
regime change. And that's because, as one scholar put it, "interfering with the market (whether using sanctions,
aid, or other government policies) has real economic costs, and we rarely know enough about how the target
economy works or how to manipulate the political incentives of the target government to achieve our goals."
74 Cuban democratic activists support lifting the travel ban
Garofalo 10 (Tom, a consultant for the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative, June 10,
2010, The Washington Note, “74 Cuban Democracy Activists Support Passage of Peterson Bill to
Lift Travel Ban”, http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ )
We the members of Cuban civil society, who are signing this letter as individuals, have learned that you are currently considering the Travel Restriction Reform
and Export Enhancement Act (H.R. 4645), to end travel restrictions on all Americans to Cuba and to remove obstacles to legal sales of United States agricultural
commodities to Cuba. We understand that this bill has the support of Republicans and Democrats in the Congress of the United States. We also know that for
this bill to be considered by the full House of Representatives, it must first be passed through the House Committee on Agriculture. We know that major nongovernmental organizations support this bill, including, to name only a few: The United States Chamber of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau Federation,
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Cuba Study Group and many other human rights
organizations. We share the opinion that the
isolation of the people of Cuba benefits the most inflexible interests of its
government, while any opening serves to inform and empower the Cuban people and helps to further strengthen our civil society. We value the experience
of all the western countries, including the United States, who favored opening and trade with all the countries of the former Eastern Europe. We are sure that
isolation does not foster relationships of respect and support for people and groups around the world who are in
favor of democratic changes in Cuba. We would like to recall the memorable words of Pope John Paul II who, in his own life, had experienced a
totalitarian and closed system: "Let Cuba open itself to the world and the world will open itself to Cuba." Over time we have seen
that the Cuban regime does not open itself fully to the world, nor to its own citizens, because what it fears most is an opening, of free trade and of free
enterprise, and the direct flow of information and communication between peoples. Those who oppose H.R. 4645 argue that lifting these restrictions would be
a concession to the Cuban regime and a source of foreign income that could be used to repress the Cuban people. They also argue that given the ongoing
violations of human rights and the repeated acts of repression, lifting these prohibitions would be an abandonment of Cuban civil society. It is true that
repression and systematic violations of Human Rights have recently increased in a cruel and public way. It is true that these funds could also be used to support
and even worsen repression. We believe, however, that if
the citizens of the United States, like those of the rest of the world,
increased their presence on our streets, visited the families of the political prisoners and other members of the nascent
Cuban civil society they could: first, serve as witnesses to the suffering of the Cuban people; second, be even more
sensitized to the need for changes in Cuba; and third, offer solidarity and a bridge to facilitate the transition we
Cubans so greatly desire. The supportive presence of American citizens, their direct help, and the many opportunities for exchange,
used effectively and in the desired direction, would not be an abandonment of Cuban civil society but rather a
force to strengthen it . Similarly, to further facilitate the sale of agricultural products would help alleviate the
food shortages we now suffer. Above all, we believe that defending each and every Human Right for all people
must be an absolute priority, ahead of any political or economic consideration, and that no restriction of these
rights can be justified on economic, political or social grounds. We believe that rights are protected with rights. Because the
ability to travel freely is the right of every human being , we support this bill. The current Cuban government has always violated
this right and in recent years has justified its actions with the fact that the government of the United States also restricts its citizens' freedom to travel. The
passage of this bill would remove this spurious justification. Finally, Honorable Representatives, we strongly believe that the
problems of Cuba and
its path to freedom and democracy are a responsibility and a labor that belongs to all Cubans, those of us who live
on the Island as well as those who suffer in exile in the Diaspora, who also love this nation we all share. In the world today, all peoples of the earth are
interconnected, even when their decisions are their sovereign right. These principles - of responsibility for our beloved country and of universal fraternity encourage us to respectfully communicate our views to you with regards to this bill, because although it is the responsibility of Americans, it affects the Cuban
people. 1. Juan Juan Almeida García 2. José Alberto ?lvarez Bravo 3. Silvio Benítez Márquez 4. Juan Carmelo Bermúdez Rosabal 5. Servando Blanco Martínez 6.
Félix Bonne Carcassés 7. Luis Cáceres Piñero 8. Claudia Cadelo de Nevis 9. Leonardo Calvo Cárdenas 10. Eleanor Calvo Martínez 11. Marcelo Cano Rodríguez 12.
Cecilio Dimas Castellanos Martí 13. Miriam Celaya González 14. Francisco Chaviano González 15. Hortensia Cires Díaz 16. Martha Cortizas Jiménez 17. Manuel
Cuesta Morúa 18. Roberto De Miranda Hernández 19. Gisela Delgado Sablón 20. Reinaldo Escobar Casas 21. Oscar Espinosa Chepe 22. Guillermo Fariñas
Hernández 23. Guedy Carlos Fernández Morejón 24. Juan Carlos Fernández Hernández 25. Karina Gálvez Chiu 26. Livia Gálvez Chiu 27. Margarita Gálvez
Martínez 28. Julio César Gálvez Rodríguez 29. Joisy García Martínez 30. José Luis García Paneque 31. Juan del Pilar Goberna 32. Ricardo González Alfonso 33.
Iván Hernández Carrillo 34. Maikel Iglesias Rodríguez 35. Irene Jerez Castillo 36. Yusnaymi Jorge Soca 37. Eugenio Leal García 38. Miriam Leiva 39. Gloria Llopis
Prendes 40. Olga Lidia López Lazo 41. Yasnay Losada Castañeda 42. Luis Ricardo Luaces 43. Juan A. Madrazo Luna 44. Ainí Martínez Valero 45. Katia Sonia
Martínez Véliz 46. Ricardo Santiago Medina Salabarría, presbítero 47. Manuel Alberto Morejón Soler, presbítero 48. Félix Navarro Rodríguez 49. Jorge Olivera
Castillo 50. Pablo Pacheco ?vila 51. Leonardo Padrón Comptiz 52. Héctor Palacios Ruíz 53. Gustavo Pardo Valdés 54. Yisel Peña Rodríguez 55. Ana Margarita
Perdigón 56. Arturo Pérez de Alejo 57. Juana Yamilia Pérez Estrella 58. Tomás Ramos Rodríguez 59. Soledad Rivas Verdecia 60. José Conrado Rodríguez Alegre,
presbítero 61. María Esperanza Rodríguez Bernal 62. Lázaro Rosales Rojas 63. Elena Rosito Yaruk 64. Yoani Sánchez Cordero 65. Fernando Sánchez López 66.
Elizardo Sánchez Santa Cruz 67. Mayra Sánchez Soria 68. Pedro Antonio Scull 69. Sergio Abel Suárez García 70. Virgilio Toledo López 71. Dagoberto Valdés
Hernández 72. Wilfredo Vallín Almeida 73. Alida Viso Bello 74. Liset Zamora
Economic engagement by getting rid of travel ban
Laura Rozen
http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0910/Retired_generals_urge_US_to_lift_Cuba_travel_
ban.html
Nine retired U.S. military officers are urging that the U.S. travel ban to Cuba be lifted.
In a letter to House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.), retired generals Paul Eaton,
Robert Gard, John Castellaw, John Hutson, David Irvine, John Johns, Stephen Xenakis, and retired Col. Lawrence
Wilkerson argue that Cuba does not pose a threat to the security of the United States. Eaton currently serves as a
senior advisor to the progressive National Security Network, and Wilkerson was an advisor to former U.S. Secretary
of State Colin Powell.
“We have already seen how the loosened travel restrictions for families visiting relatives in Cuba have begun to
build good will and change from within in Cuba,” the retired U.S. military officers write. “Lifting the overall travel
ban would extend this cultural and economic engagement and … [enhance] our security by removing unnecessary
sources of discontent in a country so close to the United States.”
Berman’s committee is scheduled to hold a markup of legislation on the Travel Restriction Reform and Export
Enhancement Act (H.R. 4645) Wednesday at noon.
With Cuba having recently released political prisoners and trying to build a private sector of Cubans leaving state
payrolls, "the right thing for Congress to do is affirm and support these reforms by loosening restrictions on travel
for all Americans," the Center for Democracy in the Americas's Sarah Stephens said. "If there were ever a time to
remove them, this would be it."
Separately, Judy Gross, the wife of a USAID subcontractor being detained by Cuba Alan Gross, was permitted to visit
him in Cuba in August, the State Department confirmed last week.
End Ban Generic
The travel ban should be ended—5 Reasons
**Freedom
**Human Rights
**Travel Ban
**Failure
**Popular Opinion
Jordan 10 Eason Jordan is the CEO of the U.S.-Cuba Business Bureau. He previously served as CNN's chief news
executive. October 14, 2010. Cuba Study Group Online.
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/newsroom?ContentRecord_id=424C4C2F-5B35-4BFF-81F4B1B29ADF29D4
Our U.S.
government permits us to travel anywhere and everywhere in the world, right?¶ Wrong.¶ Cuba is the only
country off limits to Americans by U.S. government edict.¶ The U.S. government allows Cuban-Americans and a few others to visit Cuba,
but bans the other 99% of Americans from venturing to the island nation of 11 million people.¶ Here is why: The U.S. remains
entrenched in an archaic and nonsensical de facto cold war with Cuba.¶ During the actual Cold War, the U.S. never banned its
citizens from visiting the Soviet Union or China.¶ Is Cuba such a dire threat to the U.S. and Americans that the U.S.
should deprive Americans of the right to visit that country?¶ No.¶ Here are the top five reasons we should demand an immediate end to
the U.S. government's Cuba travel ban:¶ 1. Our freedom: We should be free to travel wherever we choose
without U.S.
Human rights double standard: The U.S. and the international community rightly call for human rights in Cuba, but
the U.S. call rings hollow when the U.S. forbids its own citizens from visiting Cuba - a violation of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights - and the U.S. is the only nation in the world with a Cuba travel ban.¶ 3. Travel ban double standard : If
the U.S. government believes it appropriate to ban Americans from visiting nations that have a deplorable human
rights record, the U.S. should declare dozens of countries off limits to Americans. Yet Americans are free to visit
China and Saudi Arabia, U.S. allies whose human rights records are far worse than Cuba's, as well as Iran, Syria
and North Korea.¶ 4. Failed policy : The U.S. government's attempts to isolate, undermine, and change the Cuban
government have failed miserably for nearly five decades. It's time for a new approach that includes allowing all Americans to visit
Cuba.¶ 5. Popular opinion : Most Americans and Cuban-Americans favor ending the travel ban, according to public
opinion polls. During my dozens of trips to Cuba as a journalist, the overwhelming majority of average Cubans I encountered want
the U.S. travel ban ended, too.¶ President Obama and Congress should do what is right: End the Cuba travel ban now.
government hindrance.¶ 2.
Spills Over to the Rest of the Embargo
Lifting the travel ban results in increased support for the removal for the entire embargo
Spadoni, assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Augusta State University, and Sagebien,
associate professor at the School of Business Administration and an adjunct professor in the International
Development Studies program in the College of Sustainability at Dalhousie University in Halifax, 12/19/2012
(Paolo and Julia, “Will They Still Love Us Tomorrow? Canada-Cuba Business Relations and the End of the US
Embargo,” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tie.21524/full)
The lifting of the travel ban , in particular, will punch a big hole in the embargo. Travel agents in the United States would
be allowed to issue tickets, US airliners would freely fly to Cuba once they obtain permission from the Cuban government, and US
citizens could go there and spend money. The end of the travel ban will put wind in the sails of American food
producers who will want to benefit from the growing tourism market on the island. Financial institutions will also reap
substantial gains once US-issued credit cards can be used in Cuba. And US hotel chains will likely push to be able
to build new capacity in Cuba, which would bring to the fore the legal battles over expropriated lands . In
essence, lobbies to lift parts or the entire embargo will follow from the flow of travelers.
Empirical Examples
Empirics prove a strategy of isolation never works
CSG ’08 (Cuba Study Group, a non-profit, non-partisan organization comprised of business and community leaders of
Cuban descent who share a common interest and vision of a free and democratic Cuba. “Lifting Restrictions on
Travel and Remittances to Cuba: A Case for Unilateral Action”, Pg. 5, December 10, 2008.
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7e4643ab-af81-4a8c-9872-5ab497a76617 )
Since the Berlin Wall’s fall, approximately 28 nations have undergone transitions from communist regimes. While
¶ some of these transitions have been more successful than others in establishing progressive democracies, all ¶
have produced significantly better economic results and living conditions than their predecessor communist ¶
regimes. Nowhere in any of these transitions did human isolation from the free world—specifically in the form of ¶
travel and remittance restrictions—constitute an element of pre-transition policies by relevant Western nations, ¶
including the United States. In fact, a deeper analysis of these transitions reveals an extraordinary correlation ¶
between the degree of pre-transition openness and the degree of democratic success.1
Laundry List
Travel ban lift key to influence in Cuba, constitutional American rights, human rights and US
economy.
Sullivan ’11 (Mark P. Sullivan, specialist in Latin American affairs and writer/researcher for the
Congressional Research Service. “Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances”, p. 16-17.
January 7, 2011.)
Those who argue in favor of lifting restrictions on travel to Cuba contend that the travel ban ¶ hinders U.S. efforts
to influence political and economic conditions in Cuba. They maintain that ¶ the best way to realize change in Cuba
is to lift restrictions, allowing a flood of U.S. citizens to ¶ travel and engage in conversations with average Cubans.
They point to the influence of person-toperson contact in Russia and Eastern European nations, which they argue
ultimately helped lead ¶ to the fall of communism in the Soviet bloc. They maintain that restricting travel by
ordinary ¶ Americans prevents interaction and information exchanges with ordinary Cubans, exchanges that ¶
can help break down the Cuban government’s tight control and manipulation of news; that the ¶ current travel
ban actually supports the Cuban government in its efforts to restrict information ¶ provided to the Cuban people;
and that it in effect supports the Cuban government’s totalitarian ¶ control over the Cuban nation.A second
argument made by those who want to lift travel restrictions is that the ban abridges the ¶ rights of ordinary
Americans to travel. They contend that such restrictions on the right to travel ¶ subvert the first amendment right
of free speech. They maintain that the U.S. government should ¶ not limit the categories of travelers who can visit
Cuba or subject many prospective travelers to ¶ the requirement of applying for specific licenses, subject to denial, in
order to engage in peopleto-people contact. ¶ Those in favor of lifting the travel ban also argue that U.S. citizens
can travel to other communist ¶ or authoritarian governments around the world, such as the People’s Republic of
China, Vietnam, ¶ Burma, and Iran. They point out that Americans could travel to the Soviet Union before its ¶
breakup. Supporters of changing travel policy toward Cuba argue that their proposals would still ¶ allow the
President to prohibit such travel in times of war or armed hostilities, or if there were ¶ imminent danger to the
health or safety of Americans. They argue that these conditions do not ¶ exist with regard to Cuba, and point to a
May 1998 Defense Intelligence Agency report that ¶ concluded that “Cuba does not pose a significant military threat
to the U.S. or to other countries ¶ in the region.”27¶ Those arguing for lifting travel restrictions also point to human
rights activists in Cuba who ¶ themselves argue for the lifting of such sanctions. According to the prominent Cuban
human ¶ rights activist Elizardo Sanchez: “The more Americans on the streets of Cuban cities, the better ¶ for the
cause of a more open society in Cuba.”28 Miriam Leiva, founder of the Ladies in White ¶ human rights group, and
Oscar Espinosa Chepe, a formerly jailed independent economist on ¶ conditional release, support lifting travel
restrictions for all Americans, maintaining that ¶ Americans could help Cuba’s efforts for democracy by sharing
simple conversation and sharing ¶ every-day experiences with Cubans.29¶ Supporters of lifting the travel ban
maintain that such a move could be done without lifting the ¶ underlying U.S. embargo on trade and financial
transactions with Cuba. They point to the 1977-¶ 1982 period when the travel ban was essentially lifted, but the
overall embargo remained in place. ¶ Finally, some supporters of lifting the travel restrictions argue that the U.S.
economy would ¶ benefit from increased demand for air and cruise travel, which reportedly would expand U.S. ¶
economic output. According to a report prepared for the Center for International Policy, a policy ¶ group that
advocates lifting the embargo, U.S. economic output would expand by $1.18 billion-¶ $1.61 billion, with the
creation of between 16,888 and 23,020 jobs if travel restrictions were ¶ lifted.
Moral Obligation
Lifting the restriction is the United States’ moral obligation
(Cuba Study Group, a non-profit, non-partisan organization comprised of business and community leaders of Cuban
descent who share a common interest and vision of a free and democratic Cuba. “Lifting Restrictions on Travel and
Remittances to Cuba: A Case for Unilateral Action”, Pg. 11, December 10, 2008.
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7e4643ab-af81-4a8c-9872-5ab497a76617 )
The failed policies of the Cuban regime have relegated Cuban society to a generalized state of poverty, ¶ resulting
in human suffering and the separation of Cuban families. As a free society, the United States should ¶ not
contribute to this separation by restricting or regulating human relationships. Nor should the United States ¶
impose additional emotional suffering or undue economic deprivation on Cuba’s people . Current travel and ¶
remittance restrictions contravene each of these principles and are inconsistent with American values. ¶ The Cuba
Study Group believes that all U.S. persons (citizens and residents) should be allowed to travel freely ¶ to Cuba, just as
they are free to travel to all other countries in the world. Authorizing travel to Cuba would ¶ serve a humanitarian
purpose and would help reunite families divided by this long conflict. Travel—particularly ¶ purposeful travel that
includes artistic, religious and educational exchanges—would also facilitate freer flows ¶ of ideas and would help
to empower civil society. Even tourists can positively contribute to such processes of ¶ exchange. Likewise, lifting
remittance restrictions would provide much-needed relief to many Cubans and would ¶ reduce their dependence on
the regime.¶ Current restrictions on travel and remittances are not only counterproductive to the goal of
promoting peaceful ¶ change in Cuba, but they are also completely out of step with the times. Proponents of these
policies are ¶ increasingly isolated, and strong majorities of Cuban Americans—not to mention pro-Democracy
activists on ¶ the island itself—oppose these measures. The Cuba Study Group calls on the White House and
Congress to ¶ jointly work to remove all restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba.
Add-Ons
Terrorism
Terrorism Shell
Lifting the travel ban solves Iran and Syria conflict along with strengthening US policies against
terrorism
Castor 13 [Kathy Castor, U.S. Representative for Florida's 14th congressional district, serving in Congress since
2007, Special report for the Tampa Bay Times, Author of “What I learned in Cuba,”
http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/what-i-learned-in-cuba/2121361, Published May 18th 2013.]
Lifting travel restrictions would not only be consistent with Americans' constitutional right to travel, it would
facilitate greater exchange between the two countries and remove costly regulatory burdens. Americans are free to
travel anywhere else in the world, including countries on the State Department's State Sponsor of Terrorism list.
No rationale exists to singularly prohibit travel to Cuba.¶ The agency responsible for enforcement of travel
restrictions and sanctions has other, more pressing responsibilities in real "hot spots" around the world. They
should be able to focus on bad actors around the globe — like Iran and Syria — rather than red tape paperwork
for Americans who wish to exercise their right to travel. The travel ban should be lifted or, at the very least, the
United States should all allow permissible travel to be carried out under a general license . Streamlining travel
would save resources at a time of sequester and significant federal belt-tightening.¶ Reforming Cuba policy will
improve our diplomatic standing in the region and, at a critical moment, strengthen the credibility of our policy
against terrorism . The Summit of the Americas concluded in 2012 with a warning from our allies that if Cuba is not
allowed to attend the 2015 Summit of the Americas in Panama, they will boycott this important regional conference.
The Obama administration should use the next two years to put U.S.-Cuban relations on a constructive path.¶ In this
context, America could send a powerful signal to our allies in the region by responding creatively and
appropriately to the peace negotiations taking place in Cuba between the government of Colombia and the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. These peace talks may result in an end to five decades of
violence and provide the United States with an important foreign policy victory. The United States has devoted
years of leadership and millions of dollars of investment for peace in Colombia. All Western Hemisphere nations,
including Cuba, should continue to work together to end the violence.¶ The Obama administration and Cuban
government recently proved that direct dialogue can produce positive results. Right on the heels of my return to
Tampa, Cuban officials expeditiously returned Cole and Chase Hakken, ages 4 and 2, who had been kidnapped by
their parents in Tampa and taken by boat to Cuba.
Treasury dept. key to war on terror
Jennifer Liberto 2/16/10 (Jennifer Liberto senior writer for CNNMoney “Treasury’s quiet war”
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/16/news/international/Treasury_intelligence_office/)
Treasury is also
one of the key players in the war on terrorism and smack in the middle of nearly every major international
conflict in which the United States is involved. The office is also playing an increasingly critical role at the center of
U.S. foreign policy strategy in Korea, Iran, Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East. In particular, Treasury has been
You probably know the Treasury Department as the agency that brought you the bank bailout, the AIG rescue and, of course, the IRS. But
waging a quiet economic war against Iran. The department this month expanded sanctions on Iran to include several companies and others affiliated with Iran's
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for alleged involvement in nuclear and missile programs. Inside Treasury, the work is done by a low-profile but high-impact
unit known as the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. "Years ago, if anybody had said that Treasury would be at the center of all these national
security issues, we wouldn't have believed you," said Matthew Levitt, who used to help run the department and now directs the Washington Institute's Stein
Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. Treasury is the world's only government finance agency with its own in-house intelligence unit. It has offices as
far flung as Riyadh, Islamabad, Kabul and Abu Dhabi. They're the ones seizing or freezing assets of suspected bad guys -- from terrorists to drug runners. They're
"Treasury is the only finance ministry in
the world to have an intel shop that is very much focused on financial intelligence, getting access to information about the networks
that support terrorists, weapons proliferation or narcotics traffickers," said David Cohen, assistant secretary for terrorist financing.
a part of the U.S. intelligence apparatus, sharing information with the CIA and the FBI, among others.
'Crippling the Iranian economy' For the past few years, the intelligence office has been pressuring big banks worldwide to stop doing business with Iran. The aim
"They're really responsible for crippling the Iranian
economy," said Glenn Simpson, a senior fellow in corruption and transnational crime at the International Assessment and Strategy Center.The department
is to cut funding for Iran's nuclear efforts and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
is headed by Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey, who has become world renown. He was among the few high-ranking Bush administration appointees that
President Obama asked to stick around.In 2008, Levey was decried by an ousted Iranian finance minister who in a farewell speech publicly complained about
Levey and an "exhausting chess battle with the U.S.Treasury," according to a translation provided by an American Enterprise Institute policy analyst.Michael
Jacobson, a former senior adviser in the intelligence office, said that the president's decision to keep Levey on sent a powerful signal abroad."It was definitely a
message, particularly to Iran: We're talking about engagement but we're keeping on the guy who is responsible for the tougher moves as well," said Jacobson, a
counterterrorism and intelligence senior fellow at the Washington Institute's Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. Sanctions have always been a
the Treasury's intelligence office goes further, Cohen says. It pressures
international banks to cut ties that the United States believe are tainted by terrorism. "Frankly, you don't have to tell them
big stick available in the U.S. foreign policy arsenal, but
the next point: That it would be really bad for their reputation if it turned out they were involved in illicit transactions," Cohen said. "Financial institutions
recognize that their reputation is probably their most critical asset." Treasury's pressure often
two state-owned Iranian banks, Britain, Australia and other countries followed suit.
has a ripple effect. After the office blacklisted
Terrorism causes extinction
Ayson 10 [Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New
Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington,“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,”
Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via
InformaWorld]
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst
of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly
existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the
sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into
insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as
long as
nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always
the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—
a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable . It is
just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading
to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them . In this context, today’s and
tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who
were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were
the major
considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of
imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in
the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could
plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of
terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well.
Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile
material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The
correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while
the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and
collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some
indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if
the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American
officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state
possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington
would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would
Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against
a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded
between these major powers, would
officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst ? Of course, the chances of this
occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were
confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too:
should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow
and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack?
Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and
nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and /or China . For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate
aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear
arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that
Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force)
against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow , although it must be admitted that any preemption
would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington
might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist
group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might
interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of
influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the
main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen
insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that
might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how
other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a
nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside
the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases
than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some
reason, Washington
found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it
also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a
major exchange. If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China
held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about
their culpability? If
Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and
China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange . They might surmise, for example, that while the act of
nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one
thing for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the
international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options would lie open to
them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by
states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative
to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an
arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two
most important trustees of the non-use taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces
very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How
would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of
influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the
nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In
the charged
atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from
other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do” immediately
springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for
the terrorists. This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint. ¶ Nuclear Terrorism Against Smaller Nuclear Powers¶ There is also the
question of what lesser powers in the international system might do in response to a terrorist attack on a friendly or allied country: what they might do in
sympathy¶ or support of their attacked colleague. Moreover, if these countries are themselves nuclear ¶ armed, additional possibilities for a wider catastrophe
may lie here as well. For example,¶ if in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, a nuclear armed ally such¶ as Israel might possess special
information about the group believed to be responsible and¶ be willing and able to take the action required to punish that group. If its action involved ¶ threats
of the use of nuclear force, or the use of nuclear force itself (perhaps against a¶ country Israel believed to be harboring the nuclear terrorists), how might other
nuclear¶ armed countries react? Might some other nuclear powers demand that the United States¶ rein in its friend, and suggest a catastrophic outcome should
this restraint not take place?¶ Or would they wait long enough to ask the question?¶ Alternatively, what if some states used the nuclear terrorist attack on
another country to justify a major—and perhaps even nuclear—attack on other terrorist groups on the grounds¶ that it was now clear that it was too dangerous
to allow these groups to exist when they¶ might very well also be planning similar nuclear action? (Just as Al Qaeda’s attacks on 9/11¶ raised some of the threat
assessments of other terrorist groups, the same and more might¶ occur if any terrorist group had used a nuclear weapon,) If a nuclear armed third party took¶
things into its own hands and decided that the time for decisive action had now come, how¶ might this action affect the nuclear peace between states?¶ But it
needs to be realized that a catalytic exchange is not only possible if the terrorists ¶ have exploded a nuclear device on one of the established nuclear weapons
states, including¶ and especially the United States. A catalytic nuclear war might also be initiated by a nuclear¶ terrorist attack on a country that possesses a
nuclear arsenal of a more modest scale, and¶ which is geographically much closer to the group concerned. For example, if a South Asian terrorist group
exploded a nuclear device in India, it is very difficult to see how major¶ suspicions could not be raised in that country (and elsewhere) that Pakistan was
somehow¶ involved—either as a direct aider and abetter of the terrorists (including the provision of ¶ the bomb to them) or as at the very least a passive and
careless harborer of the groups¶ perpetrating the act. In a study that seeks to reduce overall fears of nuclear terrorism, Frost¶ nonetheless observes that
one of the nuclear powers in South Asia was “thought to be ¶ behind a ‘terrorist’
nuclear
if
attack in the region, the
risks of the incident escalating into a full nuclear exchange would be high .”¶ 43¶ Kapur is equally definite on this score, observing
that¶ “if a nuclear detonation occurred within India, the attack would be undoubtedly blamed on¶ Pakistan, with potentially catastrophic results.”¶ 44
Treasury Key
Treasury dep. Key to Counter-terrorism says former Secretary of Treasury
O’Neill, 9/01 (The Hon. Paul H. O’Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury author of “The Role of the Treasury
Department in The Counterterrorism Effort” http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=450804)
We play a key role in protecting America's borders, senior leaders, and critical information infrastructure. We work
closely with international, federal, and state partners to prevent, investigate, and prosecute those who would bring
terrorism to America's homeland. We rely on a wide range of tools and talents: from traditional detective skills to
the latest computer technology; from economic sanctions to training programs for state, local, and international
partners. We are proud to be key players on America's counterterrorism team.
US Agriculture
In the status quo the Agriculture sector is in decline
Bloomberg 13 (June 4, U.S. Farmland Values Seen Declining as World Grain Output Rises,
http://www.agweb.com/article/u.s._farmland_values_seen_declining_as_world_grain_output_rises_BLMG/)
Rising global production of wheat, soybeans and corn will decrease the U.S. share of world agriculture trade and
may reduce the value of farmland, according to a study by Ohio State University.¶ "A declining competitive advantage for U.S.
crops will ultimately reduce the relative advantage of U.S. farmland and thus the price it can command," Carl Zulauf
and Nick Rettig, economists at Ohio State, said in a report May 31. Revenue per acre may drop amid falling prices and because of "relative yield declines. In
short, the U.S. crop sector may be as vulnerable as it was in the late 1970s."¶ The Standard & Poor’s GSCI Agriculture Index of eight
commodities has jumped 57 percent since the end of 2006 as global droughts and extreme weather hampered crops. U.S. farmland values rose to a record in
2012, the government said in August. Rising crop prices spurred global farmers to increase production, and the expansion in world acreage and yields from 2007
to 2011 exceeded gains in the U.S., the Ohio State economists said.¶ "The
yield advantage of U.S. crops has been in a long-term
decline," which is also magnified by rising global acreage, Zulauf and Rettig said. "This advantage has declined substantially since the
late 1960s and has disappeared for wheat. In addition, average soybean yield over 2007-2011 was slightly higher in Brazil than the U.S."¶ U.S.
wheat yields fell 3 percent below the rest of the world from 2007 to 2011, the report showed. That compares with a 44 percent
advantage from 1968 to 1972. U.S. soybean yields were about 24 percent higher from 2007 to 2011, down from 86 percent. Corn yields averaged 2.43
times higher, down from 3.04 times.¶ From 2007 to 2011, U.S. farmers produced 8.9 percent of the global wheat crop,
35 percent of soybeans and 38 percent of corn. That’s down from 13 percent, 72 percent and 44 percent
respectively from 1968 to 1972.
Lifting the travel ban boosts the US agriculture industry
CPF 3 Cuba Policy Foundation. February 5, 2003 . “LIFTING CUBA TRAVEL BAN BENEFITS
AMERICA’S FARMERS
BETWEEN $126 AND $252 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL ANNUAL U.S. AGRICULTURAL SALES TO CUBA EXPECTED ABOVE
CURRENT LEVELS” CPF Online. http://www.cubafoundation.org/CPF%20Travel-Ag%20Study/Release-Cuba-TravelAg-0302.04.htm
Washington, DC, February 5, 2003 - An
end to the ban on American travel to Cuba would provide a boost for America’s
farmers, according to a new report produced for the Cuba Policy Foundation by one of America’s leading agricultural economists, Parr Rosson of Texas A&M
University. Lifting the travel ban would produce between $126 million and $252 million in annual U.S. agricultural
exports to Cuba , above current levels of farm sales to the island, the report concludes, and such sales would
create between 3,490 and 6,980 jobs for Americans. ¶ ¶ The full report, “Estimated Agricultural Economic Impacts of Expanded U.S. Tourism
to Cuba,” is available at www.cubafoundation.org. The report is premised on a forecast of 1.5 million annual American visitors to
Cuba on one-week stays. Some forecasts project annual U.S. travel to Cuba would be as high as 4 million visitors
in the first year, but more conservative estimates suggest that 1.5 million on seven day stays would be reached by
year three after lifting the ban. Current U.S. law forbids most Americans from traveling to Cuba.¶ ¶ “This report shows that there is a clear
link between lifting the travel ban and helping the U.S. farm economy. Lifting the Cuba travel ban would be a
significant boost for America’s farmers,”
according to Brian Alexander, Executive Director of the Cuba Policy Foundation. ¶ ¶ Farmers in
America already have begun to see some benefits of trade with Cuba. Since December 2001, over $150 million in U.S. farm products have been sold to Cuba,
sourced from at least 30 states, under an exception in the in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) that allows Americans to
export agricultural products to Cuba. Based on this figure, Cuba grew in 2002 to one of the United States’ top 50 agricultural export markets, up from dead last
of 228 countries in 2000. Cuban contracts for American food in 2002 reportedly topped $230 million, the delivery of some of which is still occurring. Statements
by the Cuban buyers indicate that agricultural purchases from the United States in 2003 would be at least at 2002 levels. ¶ ¶ In a separate study produced for
the Cuba Policy Foundation, it is demonstrated that the total potential Cuban market for American agricultural goods is $1.24 billion annually, if the embargo
were completely lifted. “Lifting
the travel ban would put the U.S. one-step closer toward this figure,” Mr. Alexander said. ¶ ¶ In
travel ban would produce major gains for the U.S. travel sector, particularly
airlines, hotels and tour operators. A July 2002 study produced by the University of Colorado at Boulder for the Cuba Policy Foundation concludes
that lifting the travel ban would produce over $1.7 billion and create 10,000 jobs for the U.S. travel sector.
addition to benefiting America’s farmers, lifting the
US agriculture is key to solve global starvation, which leads to extinction
Lugar 4 (Richard G., U.S. Senator – Indiana and Former Chair – Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “Plant Power”,
Our Planet, 14(3), http://www.unep.org/ourplanet/imgversn/143/lugar.html)
In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats and other crises, it is easy to lose sight of the long-range
challenges. But
of the most daunting of them is meeting the world’s need for food and energy in this century. At stake is not only
preventing starvation and saving the environment, but also world peace and security. History tells us that states may go to war
over access to resources, and that poverty and famine have often bred fanaticism and terrorism. Working to feed the world
will minimize factors that contribute to global instability and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. With the world population
expected to grow from 6 billion people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for affordable food will increase well beyond current international production
we do so at our peril. One
levels. People in rapidly developing nations will have the means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric intake. Inevitably, that means eating more meat. This will raise
demand for feed grain at the same time that the growing world population will need vastly more basic food to eat. Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be
better understood in the West: developing countries often use limited arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations. As good land
disappears, people
destroy timber resources and even rainforests as they try to create more arable land to feed themselves. The long-term environmental
consequences could be disastrous for the entire globe. Productivity revolution To meet the expected demand for food over the next 50
years, we in the United States will have to grow roughly three times more food on the land we have. That’s a tall order. My farm in Marion County, Indiana, for
example, yields on average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare – typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our production by 2050, we will have to produce an annual average of
25 tonnes per hectare. Can we possibly boost output that much? Well, it’s been done before. Advances
in the use of fertilizer and water, improved machinery and
better tilling techniques combined to generate a threefold increase in yields since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US
agriculture has seen similar increases. But of course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results again. Given the urgency of expanding food production to meet world
demand, we must invest much more in scientific research and target that money toward projects that promise to have significant national and global impact. For the United States,
that will mean a major shift in the way we conduct and fund agricultural science. Fundamental research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the world. The
United States can take a leading position in a productivity revolution. And our success at increasing food production may
play a decisive humanitarian role in the survival of billions of people and the health of our planet.
Ban Key
Lifting the travel ban helps the American farm industry
CPF 3 Cuba Policy Foundation. February 5, 2003 . “LIFTING CUBA TRAVEL BAN BENEFITS
AMERICA’S FARMERS
BETWEEN $126 AND $252 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL ANNUAL U.S. AGRICULTURAL SALES TO CUBA EXPECTED ABOVE
CURRENT LEVELS” CPF Online. http://www.cubafoundation.org/CPF%20Travel-Ag%20Study/Release-Cuba-TravelAg-0302.04.htm
Washington, DC, February 5, 2003 - An
end to the ban on American travel to Cuba would provide a boost for America’s
farmers, according to a new report produced for the Cuba Policy Foundation by one of America’s leading agricultural economists, Parr Rosson of Texas A&M
University. Lifting the travel ban would produce between $126 million and $252 million in annual U.S. agricultural
exports to Cuba, above current levels of farm sales to the island, the report concludes, and such sales would
create between 3,490 and 6,980 jobs for Americans. ¶ ¶ The full report, “Estimated Agricultural Economic Impacts of Expanded U.S. Tourism
to Cuba,” is available at www.cubafoundation.org. The report is premised on a forecast of 1.5 million annual American visitors to
Cuba on one-week stays. Some forecasts project annual U.S. travel to Cuba would be as high as 4 million visitors
in the first year, but more conservative estimates suggest that 1.5 million on seven day stays would be reached by
year three after lifting the ban. Current U.S. law forbids most Americans from traveling to Cuba.¶ ¶ “This report shows that there is a clear
link between lifting the travel ban and helping the U.S. farm economy. Lifting the Cuba travel ban would be a
significant boost for America’s farmers,”
according to Brian Alexander, Executive Director of the Cuba Policy Foundation. ¶ ¶ Farmers in
America already have begun to see some benefits of trade with Cuba. Since December 2001, over $150 million in U.S. farm products have been sold to Cuba,
sourced from at least 30 states, under an exception in the in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) that allows Americans to
export agricultural products to Cuba. Based on this figure, Cuba grew in 2002 to one of the United States’ top 50 agricultural export markets, up from dead last
of 228 countries in 2000. Cuban contracts for American food in 2002 reportedly topped $230 million, the delivery of some of which is still occurring. Statements
by the Cuban buyers indicate that agricultural purchases from the United States in 2003 would be at least at 2002 levels. ¶ ¶ In a separate study produced for
the Cuba Policy Foundation, it is demonstrated that the total potential Cuban market for American agricultural goods is $1.24 billion annually, if the embargo
were completely lifted. “Lifting
the travel ban would put the U.S. one-step closer toward this figure,” Mr. Alexander said. ¶ ¶ In
travel ban would produce major gains for the U.S. travel sector, particularly
airlines, hotels and tour operators. A July 2002 study produced by the University of Colorado at Boulder for the Cuba Policy Foundation concludes
that lifting the travel ban would produce over $1.7 billion and create 10,000 jobs for the U.S. travel sector.
addition to benefiting America’s farmers, lifting the
Ending the ban will help accelerate the democratization of Cuba
USAToday 2. July 22, 2002 “Ending Cuba travel ban would help ailing airlines” USAToday Opinion Online.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/comment/columnists/wickham/2002-07-22-wickham_x.htm
Cuba is on the brink of change. The shift it has made from being the ward of the Soviet Union to a socialist state dependent on
tourism has already produced some positive results. Many more are likely to occur if the travel ban is lifted and
planeloads of Americans descend upon the island.¶ Already the money that Canadian and European tourists have
poured into Cuba's economy has forced the nation to adopt some democratic reforms. There are now some independent cab
drivers in Havana; plus a growing number of small privately owned restaurants and farms, whose products are sold at farmer's markets around the capital
to people whose spending power has been increased by the money they make working in the country's tourism
industry.¶ The pace of this change could be accelerated if this nation's embargo on travel to Cuba is ended.
Lifting Travel Ban Helps American farmers
5/2/03 http://www.cubafoundation.org/CPF%20Travel-Ag%20Study/Release-Cuba-Travel-Ag-0302.04.htm
Washington, DC, February 5, 2003 - An end to the ban on American travel to Cuba would provide a boost for
America’s farmers, according to a new report produced for the Cuba Policy Foundation by one of America’s leading
agricultural economists, Parr Rosson of Texas A&M University. Lifting the travel ban would produce between $126
million and $252 million in annual U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba, above current levels of farm sales to the island,
the report concludes, and such sales would create between 3,490 and 6,980 jobs for Americans.
The full report, “Estimated Agricultural Economic Impacts of Expanded U.S. Tourism to Cuba,” is available at
www.cubafoundation.org. The report is premised on a forecast of 1.5 million annual American visitors to Cuba on
one-week stays. Some forecasts project annual U.S. travel to Cuba would be as high as 4 million visitors in the first
year, but more conservative estimates suggest that 1.5 million on seven day stays would be reached by year three
after lifting the ban. Current U.S. law forbids most Americans from traveling to Cuba.
“This report shows that there is a clear link between lifting the travel ban and helping the U.S. farm economy.
Lifting the Cuba travel ban would be a significant boost for America’s farmers,” according to Brian Alexander,
Executive Director of the Cuba Policy Foundation.
Farmers in America already have begun to see some benefits of trade with Cuba. Since December 2001, over $150
million in U.S. farm products have been sold to Cuba, sourced from at least 30 states, under an exception in the in
the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) that allows Americans to export
agricultural products to Cuba. Based on this figure, Cuba grew in 2002 to one of the United States’ top 50
agricultural export markets, up from dead last of 228 countries in 2000. Cuban contracts for American food in 2002
reportedly topped $230 million, the delivery of some of which is still occurring. Statements by the Cuban buyers
indicate that agricultural purchases from the United States in 2003 would be at least at 2002 levels.
In a separate study produced for the Cuba Policy Foundation, it is demonstrated that the total potential Cuban
market for American agricultural goods is $1.24 billion annually, if the embargo were completely lifted. “Lifting the
travel ban would put the U.S. one-step closer toward this figure,” Mr. Alexander said.
In addition to benefiting America’s farmers, lifting the travel ban would produce major gains for the U.S. travel
sector, particularly airlines, hotels and tour operators. A July 2002 study produced by the University of Colorado at
Boulder for the Cuba Policy Foundation concludes that lifting the travel ban would produce over $1.7 billion and
create 10,000 jobs for the U.S. travel sector.
Cuban Embargo costs Farmers 1.24 billion annually
Brian Alexander 1/28/02 http://www.cubafoundation.org/pdf/CPF-Release-AgStudy-0202.28.htm
Monday, January 28, 2002, Washington – The U.S. economy is losing up to $1.24 billion annually in agricultural
exports because of the embargo against Cuba – and up to $3.6 billion more annually in related economic output.
That’s the finding of a new report by two of America’s top agricultural economists, released today by the Cuba Policy
Foundation, the Washington-based organization led by senior diplomats in Republican Administrations.
"If the embargo were lifted, the average American farmer would feel a difference in his or her life within two to
three years," says the report’s co-author, C. Parr Rosson, professor of agricultural economics at Texas A&M
University. The report, "Economic Impacts of U.S. Agricultural Exports to Cuba," was written by professor Rosson
and his colleague at Texas A&M, Flynn Adcock.
Based on the report, two former U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture, the Reagan Administration’s John Block and the
Clinton Administration’s Dan Glickman, today wrote to President Bush: "Current U.S. policy has not given relief to
the Cuban people. And now it's just as clear: Our policy is also harming American farmers during these tough
economic times. Mr. President, the sooner we lift this failed embargo, the better."
Today’s report ranks all U.S. states from 1 to 50 in terms of the potential impact of the embargo on their respective
agricultural sectors. The subcategories include annual potential agricultural exports, and additional potential
economic output stemming from the new agricultural exports.
An overview chart of the top 20 states, with dollar estimates in both categories, is included in this press release.
Charts of all 50 states in a whole range of categories – including by commodity – is in the report itself.
The top 20 states are, in order: #1 Arkansas, #2 California, #3 Iowa, #4 Louisiana, #5 Texas, #6 Illinois, #7 Mississippi,
#8 Minnesota, #9 Nebraska, #10 Missouri, #11 Kansas, #12 North Dakota, #13 North Carolina, #14 Washington State,
#15 Indiana, #16 Georgia, #17 Florida, #18 South Dakota, #19 Ohio and #20 Alabama.
"With the numbers in today’s report," said Ambassador Sally Grooms Cowal, president of the Cuba Policy
Foundation, "I challenge the pro-embargo lobby to tell farmers that it’s right to make them bear the economic
burden of a policy that has failed for 40 years. That argument won’t pass moral muster, and now it won’t pass
political muster either – not when the farmers hurt most by the embargo are in states like California, Texas, Illinois
and, of course, Iowa.
"Today’s report will accelerate the momentum on Capitol Hill, which is already significant, for changing U.S. policies
toward Cuba," Ambassador Cowal said. "These numbers are an economic and political double-whammy of a kind
that the pro-embargo lobby has never faced before."
The Cuba Policy Foundation, founded in early 2001, is a nonpartisan, decidedly centrist organization led by senior
diplomats in Republican Administrations. The Cuba Policy Foundation believes changing U.S. policies toward Cuba
would be in America’s national and economic interests, and would bring democratic reform to Cuba at last.
The president of the Cuba Policy Foundation, Ambassador Sally Grooms Cowal, spent 23 years in the U.S. Foreign
Service working for a series of pro-embargo Republican presidents, beginning with President Nixon. She rose to
become Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America under first President Bush, who later appointed her
Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago. The chairman of the board of the Cuba Policy Foundation is William D. Rogers,
Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America and Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs under President
Ford.
Economy Scenario
Agriculture is key to the economy
Hoenig 11 (Thomas, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Hearing;
"Agriculture: Growing America's Economy"; lexis)
Agriculture - broadly defined as farm production and output from related industries - accounts for almost one-sixth of U.S. jobs and economic
activity. While the farm share of economic output has declined as other parts of our economy have grown, increased activity in broader agricultural
industries - manufacturing, transportation, distribution and food retailing - has opened new job opportunities in both rural and metro communities. A
robust agricultural sector cushioned the rural economy in our and other regions across the nation during the
recent recession, and the industry's strength is supporting further improvement in the rural economy today. In 2010, strong
demand and tight supplies for most farm commodities contributed to a sharp rebound in farm profits , which then
supported sales in farm equipment and other farm-based industries. Strong profits from agriculture also girded important
elements of our rural financial system. Commercial banks with large agricultural loan portfolios posted stronger returns than their peers
over the past three years. While more than 300 commercial banks failed during this time, only 22 were agricultural banks.
The best statistical support proves economic decline causes war
Royal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010,
“Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace:
Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate
degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and 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
trade'
'future expectation of
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 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, the presence 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 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
incentives to
fabricate
theory " suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased
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 United States, 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 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.¶ This
observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those
mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not
specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those
views.
Agricultural key to strong economy
NCbiofuels 12
(organization which has as its goal the awareness of biofuel and agricultural industries) "Agriculture - The Cornerstone Of Our Old (And New)
Economy." Agriculture - The Cornerstone Of Our Old (And New) Economy. NCbiofuels, 27 June 2012. Web. 28 June 2012. <http://ncbiofuels.net/biofuels-ncblog/643-agriculture-the-cornerstone-of-our-old-and-new-economy.html>.
America may not currently be as aware of the economic value of agriculture as we should be, but America is changing. Many of us are quickly realizing it is not
possible to sustain our planet or our economy with "throw away" products and artificially deflated costs. Both the credit and housing crises and recession of the
past few years have made all of us think about our resources differently. These events brought to light the need for all of us to change, not just for our economy,
but also for our planet. How
can we create jobs, increase strategic security, reduce waste, and sustain our own
communities with resources we currently have available to us? A large part of the answer has been right in front
of us all along: by creating new opportunity through agriculture. Innovating new agricultural industries is key to
creating sustainable national wealth and security.
The U.S Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, wrote recently in the White House Blog
about why creating an advanced biofuels sector in the U.S. is crucial. He said, "I believe in renewable fuel production goals and I believe in the need for
improved energy security, a cleaner environment, better economic opportunity and job creation in rural America." Developing the biofuels industry will create
massive demand for agricultural products (specifically biomass for biofuel production) and that demand will create potentially thousands of new rural jobs.
Agriculture is the giant on which our economy stands
Robinson 10
Robinson, Elton. (Staff writer for Southwest Farm Press) "Agriculture - the Unseen Economic Giant." Southwest Farm Press. Southwest Farm Press, 17 Nov. 2010.
Web. 28 June 2012. <http://southwestfarmpress.com/management/agriculture-unseen-economic-giant>.
Agriculture is an economic giant providing food, feed, fuel and fiber for so many despite the extremes of weather,
politics and volatile markets. Agriculture is everywhere we look — horses romping in a pasture along a rural road; our healthy,
hardwood forests; all those gleaming, winter-flooded fields giving sustenance to wildlife; and wide, breathtaking fields of corn, cotton,
soybeans, rice and wheat lining our highways.
An agriculture collapse would collapse overall economy
Kugler 98 (Lane, Columnist, “American Farmers Are Struggling”, Journal of Commerce, 12-31, Lexis)
U.S. agriculture prices have reached lows not seen in 10, 20 or even 30 years, while the costs of living, labor and machinery are at record highs. The
only thing missing that was present 70 years ago is a stock-market plunge and massive unemployment. If this country continues to allow its
agriculture to sink to Depression-era levels, how can it keep the stock market from tumbling, too? Think about the stock
market's falling to levels of 30 years ago, say around 700, instead of flirting with 9,000. Impossible? In just over two years, cash grain prices have
dropped over 70 percent from the high posted in July 1996. Hog prices also reflect a near-70 percent decline since 1990. Many things have
contributed to this dramatic decline of commodity prices. Some have directly benefited the consumer, like lower petroleum prices that were passed
on at the gas pump. However, this has not been the case with meats and other commodities in 1997 and 1998. Processors and retailers decided they
could increase their margins rather than passing on the savings to the consumer (which would have cleaned up the oversupply). Supplies continue to
build, benefiting only processors and retailers, not consumers. Free markets have been stymied. I am not trying to tell you we are heading for a
sequel of the Great Depression. But why is the greatest production machine in the world, American agriculture, going through such difficult times?
Why should a minority, those who produce the majority of our food, be subjected to cost inflation and price deflation at the same time? U. S.
taxpayers coughed up $6 billion dollars this year to help the farmer. Along with next year's Freedom to Farm payments, the extra cash is helping us
through the crisis. Thank you, it is just what we needed: another Band-Aid. Government policy for the past 60 years has been to intravenously feed
farmers the ""antibiotic'' of farm subsidies and price supports. But the wound has never healed. The Freedom to Farm Act attempts to wean
agriculture from subsidies and supports by initiating a ""withdrawal'' process. The problem is, other grain-producing countries around the world
don't see it that way. They continue to subsidize their producers. The livestock producer gets no help from taxpayers. But if these prices continue, it
is a pretty sure bet the banks holding his notes will get bailed out. We can make our products much more affordable to foreign buyers by devaluing
the dollar. But, you say, that will cause inflation. Maybe investors should rethink inflation. Maybe a little inflation is much better than another
Depression. If you look at government money-supply figures, it would appear that Washington may have started to print money (which, in hindsight,
could have prevented the Great Depression). I hope this is the case. The enormous power of the hedge funds that continuously short commodity
futures - the pricing mechanism of the world these days - is staggering.
economy is sure to follow.
Agricultural key to economy
If agriculture dies an economic death, the rest of the
NASA 06
NASA. (space agency) "SCIENCE SERVING SOCIETY: AGRICULTURAL COMPETITIVENESS."NASA.gov. NASA, May 2006. Web. 27 June 2012.
One of our nation’s most vital needs is a stable and dependable food supply for an ever-increasing population. The
Midwest United States is known as America’s “Breadbasket” because it is home to the vast majority of America’s productive farmland and is vital to the
American economy. Any
disruption to the productivity of these lands can have devastating economic consequences. For
example, in the summer of 1988, the Midwest United States experienced its worst dry spell since the 1930s
causing an estimated $40 billion in crop damages. In contrast, summer 1993 was exceptionally wet, with flooding on the Missouri and
Mississippi rivers that wreaked havoc on agricultural lands and caused extensive crop damage.
Agriculture key to us economy- highly productive sector
USDA 98 (Agricultural Productivity in the United States, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Information Bulletin No.
740,pdf)
Increased productivity is a key to a healthy and thriving economy. Consequently, the trend in productivity,
economywide, is one of the most closely watched of our common economic performance indicators. Agriculture, in
particular, has been a very successful sector of the U.S. economy in terms of productivity growth . The U.S. farm
sector has provided an abundance of output while using inputs efficiently. Increased productivity improves
society’s general standard of living because productivity gains are passed on to the consumer in the form of lower
product prices. If productivity levels in a sector of the economy rise, resources will be released for use by other
sectors of the economy. In the case of agriculture, the high levels of productivity have freed up resources that would
otherwise have been used to meet basic food needs of the population. In addition, lower real prices for agricultural
products have contributed to the favorable U.S. trade position in international agricultural markets. This report
examines the trends in agricultural productivity, output, and input use during 1948-94 and describes the factors that
contribute to agricultural productivity growth.
Ag key to the economy- trade surplus
USDA 98 (Agricultural Productivity in the United States, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Information Bulletin No.
740)
As increased productivity lowers real agricultural output prices, the international competitive position of U.S. agriculture improves. The
United States is
the leading agricultural exporter. Given the persistent U.S. trade deficit overall, the trade surplus in agricultural
products is critical to the health of the U.S. economy. The share of U.S. agricultural production exported is more
than double that of other major U.S. industries.
Ag key to economy
Shames 7 (Lisa, April 24, Director at the Government Accountability Office, Safety of Food Supple CQ Congressional Testimony, lexis)
Ensuring the safety of the nation's food supply is even more urgent since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 heightened awareness of agriculture's
vulnerabilities to terrorism, such as the deliberate contamination of food or the introduction of disease to livestock, poultry, and crops. Agriculture,
as
the largest industry and employer in the United States, generates more than $1 trillion in economic activity
annually, or about 13 percent of the gross domestic product. An introduction of a highly infectious foreign animal disease, such as avian
influenza or foot-and-mouth disease, would cause severe economic disruption, including substantial losses from halted agricultural
exports, which exceeded $68 billion in fiscal year 2006.
Agriculture Internal Links
Lifting Travel Ban Helps American farmers
Alexander 3 (Brian, May 2, writer for the Cuba foundation, LIFTING CUBA TRAVEL BAN BENEFITS AMERICA’S FARMERS
http://www.cubafoundation.org/CPF%20Travel-Ag%20Study/Release-Cuba-Travel-Ag-0302.04.htm)
Washington, DC, February 5, 2003 - An end
to the ban on American travel to Cuba would provide a boost for America’s
farmers, according to a new report produced for the Cuba Policy Foundation by one of America’s leading agricultural economists, Parr Rosson of Texas A&M
University. Lifting the travel ban would produce between $126 million and $252 million in annual U.S. agricultural exports to
Cuba, above current levels of farm sales to the island, the report concludes, and such sales would create between 3,490 and 6,980 jobs
for Americans. ¶ ¶ The full report, “Estimated Agricultural Economic Impacts of Expanded U.S. Tourism to Cuba,” is available at www.cubafoundation.org.
The report is premised on a forecast of 1.5 million annual American visitors to Cuba on one-week stays. Some forecasts project annual U.S. travel to Cuba would
be as high as 4 million visitors in the first year, but more conservative estimates suggest that 1.5 million on seven day stays would be reached by year three after
lifting the ban. Current U.S. law forbids most Americans from traveling to Cuba.¶ ¶ “This report shows that there
is a clear link between lifting
the travel ban and helping the U.S. farm economy. Lifting the Cuba travel ban would be a significant boost for America’s farmers,” according
to Brian Alexander, Executive Director of the Cuba Policy Foundation. ¶ ¶ Farmers in America already have begun to see some benefits of trade with Cuba. Since
December 2001, over $150 million in U.S. farm products have been sold to Cuba, sourced from at least 30 states, under an exception in the in the Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA) that allows Americans to export agricultural products to Cuba. Based on this figure, Cuba grew in
2002 to one of the United States’ top 50 agricultural export markets, up from dead last of 228 countries in 2000. Cuban contracts for American food in 2002
reportedly topped $230 million, the delivery of some of which is still occurring. Statements by the Cuban buyers indicate that agricultural purchases from the
United States in 2003 would be at least at 2002 levels. ¶ ¶ In a separate study produced for the Cuba Policy Foundation, it is demonstrated that the
total
potential Cuban market for American agricultural goods is $1.24 billion annually , if the embargo were completely lifted. “Lifting
the travel ban would put the U.S. one-step closer toward this figure,” Mr. Alexander said. ¶ ¶ In addition to benefiting America’s farmers, lifting the travel ban
would produce
major gains for the U.S. travel sector, particularly airlines, hotels and tour operators . A July 2002 study
produced by the University of Colorado at Boulder for the Cuba Policy Foundation concludes that lifting the travel ban would produce over
$1.7 billion and create 10,000 jobs for the U.S. travel sector.
Cuban Embargo costs Farmers 1.24 billion annually
Alexander 2 (Alexander, January 28, writer for the Cuba Foundation, AMERICA’S FARMERS BEARING HEAVY BURDEN FOR U.S. EMBARGO AGAINST
CUBA: NEW REPORT, http://www.cubafoundation.org/pdf/CPF-Release-AgStudy-0202.28.htm)
Monday, January 28, 2002, Washington –
The U.S. economy is losing up to $1.24 billion annually in agricultural exports
because of the embargo against Cuba – and up to $3.6 billion more annually in related economic output. That’s the
finding of a new report by two of America’s top agricultural economists, released today by the Cuba Policy Foundation, the Washington-based organization led
by senior diplomats in Republican Administrations.¶ "If
the embargo were lifted, the average American farmer would feel a
difference in his or her life within two to three years," says the report’s co-author, C. Parr Rosson, professor of agricultural economics at
Texas A&M University. The report, "Economic Impacts of U.S. Agricultural Exports to Cuba," was written by professor Rosson and his colleague at Texas A&M,
Flynn Adcock.¶ Based on the report, two former U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture, the Reagan Administration’s John Block and the Clinton Administration’s Dan
Glickman, today wrote to President Bush: "Current U.S. policy has not given relief to the Cuban people. And now it's just as clear: Our
policy is also
harming American farmers during these tough economic times. Mr. President, the sooner we lift this failed embargo,
the better."¶ Today’s report ranks all U.S. states from 1 to 50 in terms of the potential impact of the embargo on their respective agricultural sectors. The
subcategories include annual potential agricultural exports, and additional potential economic output stemming from the new agricultural exports.¶ An
overview chart of the top 20 states, with dollar estimates in both categories, is included in this press release. Charts of all 50 states in a whole range of
categories – including by commodity – is in the report itself.¶ The top 20 states are, in order: #1 Arkansas, #2 California, #3 Iowa, #4 Louisiana, #5 Texas, #6
Illinois, #7 Mississippi, #8 Minnesota, #9 Nebraska, #10 Missouri, #11 Kansas, #12 North Dakota, #13 North Carolina, #14 Washington State, #15 Indiana, #16
Georgia, #17 Florida, #18 South Dakota, #19 Ohio and #20 Alabama.¶ "With the numbers in today’s report," said Ambassador Sally Grooms Cowal, president of
the Cuba Policy Foundation, "I challenge the pro-embargo lobby to tell farmers that it’s right to make them bear the economic burden of a policy that has failed
for 40 years. That argument won’t pass moral muster, and now it won’t pass political muster either – not when the farmers hurt most by the embargo are in
states like California, Texas, Illinois and, of course, Iowa.¶ "Today’s report will accelerate the momentum on Capitol Hill, which is already significant, for changing
U.S. policies toward Cuba," Ambassador Cowal said. "These numbers are an economic and political double-whammy of a kind that the pro-embargo lobby has
never faced before."¶ The Cuba Policy Foundation, founded in early 2001, is a nonpartisan, decidedly centrist organization led by senior diplomats in Republican
Administrations. The Cuba Policy Foundation believes changing
U.S. policies toward Cuba would be in America’s national and
economic interests, and would bring democratic reform to Cuba at last.¶ The president of the Cuba Policy Foundation, Ambassador
Sally Grooms Cowal, spent 23 years in the U.S. Foreign Service working for a series of pro-embargo Republican presidents, beginning with President Nixon. She
rose to become Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America under first President Bush, who later appointed her Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago.
The chairman of the board of the Cuba Policy Foundation is William D. Rogers, Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America and Undersecretary of State for
Economic Affairs under President Ford.¶
U.S.-Cuban Relations
Travel Ban Key
Lift key to relations
Levy ’13 (Arturo Levy Lopez, a Lecturer and Doctoral Candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at
the University of Denver, a consultant for the New America foundation and the Inter-American Dialogue about Cuba
and American policy towards Latin America. “Proponents, Dynamics, and Challenges of Cuba's Migration Reform”,
3/21/13. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arturo-lopez-levy/cuban-migration-reform_b_2897127.html )
The challenge for the United States is not to find a temporary, quick fix, like in the migratory crises of 1980 and
1994, but rather to implement structural modifications. The adopted changes are not meant to unleash a massive
or uncontrolled emigration to relieve an urgent crisis. It is not a coincidence that the second provision of the new
legislation (Decree-Law 302) distinguishes between the "Cuban Adjustment Act" and the "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy,
the former legislative, the latter, an executive order. Extending to two years the time that Cubans can stay abroad
without losing residency status, for the first time permits Cubans to be eligible for the U.S. Cuban Adjustment Act
of 1966 while maintaining their residency, status and property on the island. Cuban citizens who are also citizens
of countries that do not require a United States visa (Spain, in particular), or who have visas from third countries,
can reach U.S. soil and, if they enter legally, after one year, may begin procedures to obtain permanent residency
and eventually, citizenship.¶ The new dynamic created by these migration policy changes is very favorable to
moderate sectors within the Cuban emigrant community, which, given the increase in travel, would benefit from
the growth of a transnational public space between Cuba and the United States. These new forces favor a less
hostile bilateral relationship. For those groups and for the sake of U.S. national interests, which is not the same as
the vindictive desires of the exiled Cuban right, the ideal would be an adjustment of U.S. policy that discontinues
the automatic acceptance of Cubans arriving irregularly, but permits those who enter with legitimate visas for
family visits, study or travel, to claim legal residence under the Cuban Adjustment Act.¶ Since January 14, the
paradoxical reality is that the majority of Cubans are free to visit the United States, if they get a U.S. visa, while the
majority of U.S. citizens are prevented from visiting the island. As Cuba changes, the inability of U.S. policy to adjust
to new the context looks more schizophrenic than ever.
Lifting the travel ban is key to normalize US-Cuba Relations
Meckler 09 [Laura Meckler, White House Correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Author of “U.S. to Lift Some
Cuba Travel Curbs,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879435046687885.html, Published April 4th, 2009]
The expected action comes as cries grow louder in Congress to open U.S. policy toward Cuba. A bill introduced this
year would allow unlimited travel for any purpose by Americans. Sen. Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote Mr. Obama this week calling for a change in U.S. posture toward Cuba
and suggested that his administration open a dialogue about how to bring Cuba into the international community.¶
Mr. Obama has also been under pressure from Latin leaders to make a gesture toward Cuba to start rebuilding
regional relations.¶ Reaction to the expected policy shift was mixed. " The status quo has been unnatural and
immoral ," said Julia Sweig, a Cuba specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations. " This will at least allow families
to begin to normalize, if not the two countries ."¶ Some Cuban-American circles have pressed to maintain U.S.
restrictions because of their antipathy for Fidel Castro and his brother, Raul, who replaced him as leader after
Fidel became ill. "How do you help people speak out about human rights violations if you're basically extending the
dictatorship abroad?" said Mauricio Claver-Carone, director of U.S. Cuba Democracy PAC.
Lifting the restriction solves relations and key to a peaceful transition to democracy– solves internal Cuban
conflicts
(Cuba Study Group, a non-profit, non-partisan organization comprised of business and community leaders of Cuban
descent who share a common interest and vision of a free and democratic Cuba. “Lifting Restrictions on Travel and
Remittances to Cuba: A Case for Unilateral Action”, Pg. 7, December 10, 2008.
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7e4643ab-af81-4a8c-9872-5ab497a76617 )
Allowing Cuban émigrés to freely visit family members and friends would help reunite families and rekindle ¶
friendships. Strengthening such relationships encourages a process of national reconciliation, which is ¶
necessary for a deeply divided nation . After nearly 50 years of division, political hatred and government ¶
brutality, human ties that are built step by step on the ground will be essential to any peaceful transition to ¶
democracy. In addition, contact between U.S. persons and Cubans on the island would help dispel years of ¶
negative regime propaganda aimed at vilifying the United States and the Cuban-American community as well as ¶
increasing the Cuban people’s fear of change.¶ Research conducted by Freedom House conclusively shows that the
most important factor in a democratic ¶ transition’s success is the absence of violence during the transitional
process. Cuba’s own history with political ¶ violence makes it all the more necessary for processes of national
reconciliation to take hold sooner rather than ¶ later. If Cuba ever peacefully confronts some of its more complex
transitional justice issues (property rights, ¶ building a new democracy, confronting the legacy of human rights
abuses, etc.), individual citizens must first be ¶ able to address their grievances with one another and build trust.
Travel acts as a key vehicle to facilitate such ¶ crucial people-to-people exchanges.
Ending the travel ban is inevitable and will help our relationship with Europe and Latin America
Lugar 03 (Richard, US senator from Indiana from 1977 to 2013. A member of the Republican Party, Lugar served as Chairman of
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations twice, October 2, 2003, “HALLENGES FOR U.S. POLICY TOWARDS CUBA”, Capitol Hill
Hearing, http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ )
SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R-IN): This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is called to order. Today, the committee meets to examine the United States policy toward Cuba.
This is a particularly opportune time to address the subject because something new is happening in Cuba. Little noticed
by outsiders, a courageous and diverse pro- democracy movement is quietly risen above the ramparts of Castro's
repression. Independent journalists are doing their best to provide alternate views. Individuals are opening their homes and personal libraries to their communities.
Independent labor unions are documenting violations of worker rights. Cuba's more than 300 political prisoners and their families are now
getting help from human rights groups. Part of the citizens' ground swell is relying on its own initiative to seek peaceful emancipation from a totalitarian state.
The most public expression of this movement is the Varela Project launched by Osvaldo Pay, using a provision of a constitution that allows citizens to request a popular referenda. Pay,
a leader of the homegrown Christian Liberation Movement, collected more than 11,000 signatures on a petition asking the government to hold a vote on establishing more democratic
freedoms. But instead of granting the petition, Castro's submissive National Assembly refused to recognize it. The government rounded up some 75 activists, many directly connected
with the Varela Project named for a 19th century reformer, Father Felix Varela. After a sham trial, the activists were given sentences ranging from six to 28 years. The Castro regime
punctuated its crackdown by executing three Cubans accused of attempting to hijack a boat and flee the country. If Castro thought the war in Iraq would distract the world from his
actions, he was wrong. The United States denounced him as did most of Latin America, the European Union, the Vatican, the International Council of Free Trade Unions and a number
of foreign governments and intellectuals, including many who normally overlook Castro's outrages and may criticize the United States policy toward Cuba. This
combination
of re-energized international community and a vigorous dissident movement on the island itself presents the U nited
States with an opportunity to promote the forces of freedom and re- unite the civilized world against Fidel Castro's
policies. I believe that our current Cuba strategy has not worked. More than 40 years of diplomatic isolation and
economic embargo have not toppled Castro, brought democracy to the island or improved the daily lives of
average Cubans. The Helms-Burton law passed in 1996 has failed to deter third countries from investing in Cuba and too often our Cuba policies have isolated us from our
European and Latin American allies and reinforced Castro's efforts to convince many of his people that the United States holds a grudge against them. Opening up to Cuba now,
the current policy
is not our only option. Adjustments can be made to leverage our relationship with both Europe and Latin
however, would send the wrong signal appearing to reward Castro for his crack-down and it would be too divisive here at home. But
America and support the aspirations of the freedom-seeking democrats in Cuba. This approach is based on three principles.
First, the United States should expand its support for the pro-freedom forces in Cuba by boosting our program that gives them
short-wave radios and books, raising the power of Radio Mart's signal and bringing more dissidents to the United States for cultural
exchanges. Second, we should work with Europe, Latin American countries and the Organization of American
States to reach out to political activists. In the past, many of our allies have neglected Cuba's Democrats because they disagree with larger U.S.
policy. But the Varela crack-down has awoken others to the dissidents' plight. At the same time, we should narrowly focus our combined
pressure on Castro and his inner circle to end their human rights abuses. Third, at an appropriate time, we should
consider implementing a rational end to travel restrictions to let more ideas flow into the country. We must think
beyond the fruitless war of attrition that has only served to make Castro a folk hero in some part of the world, and to distract American policymakers from
By focusing on human rights instead of Cuba, we will convince skeptical
allies in this hemisphere and in Europe that our policy is pro-democracy and not simply anti-Castro. The 77-year-old
Cold War dinosaur's days are surely numbered. A transition is inevitable and we should begin to prepare now. This three point
policy will help that transition by encouraging a new generation of Cuban leaders to talk to one another and to
listen to their people ; a dialogue through which they are bound to find common ground among the glaring failures of the
issues of greater or equal importance in Latin America.
dilapidated regime.
Relations Key Human Rights
Relations key to solve human rights
Amash ’12 (Brandon Amash, contributing writer for the Prospect Journal. “Evaluating the Cuban
Embargo”, July 23, 2012. http://prospectjournal.org/2012/07/23/evaluating-the-cuban-embargo/ )
Cuba has a long record of violating the fundamental human rights of freedom of opinion, thought, expression, and
the right to dissent; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly protects these rights in Articles 19 and 21.
Article 19 states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.” Article 21 similarly states that “everyone has the right to take part in the government of his
country […]” (UDHR). The purpose of this proposal is to provide the United States with an alternative foreign
policy approach toward Cuba that will improve human rights conditions and foster democracy in the country.
Namely, I argue that the embargo policy should be abandoned and replaced with a policy based on modeling
appropriate behavior, providing support and resources to developing democratic systems and encouraging
participation in multilateral institutions. In the following pages, I will describe the historical context of the situation,
critique the embargo policy and advocate for the normalization of relations with Cuba as a stronger approach to
improving human rights and espousing democracy.
It is essential to carefully consider this proposal as a viable policy alternative for promoting democracy and
protecting human rights in Cuba because the current embargo policy has proven to be ineffective in advancing
these goals. Developing more effective approaches to similar situations of democratization and promotion of ideals
has been a foreign policy goal of the United States since before the Cold War. However, despite the vast shifts in the
international climate following the end of the Cold War, U.S. policy towards Cuba has not adapted. As such, this
proposal highlights the need for a fresh policy toward our neighbor and bitter rival.
Human Rights
Ending the travel ban will help streamline the tourism industry while also helping to push
forward discussion about human rights issues
Bloomberg 9 Bloomberg Financial News September 21, 2009 “Overturning Cuba Travel Ban May Pass House This Year, Farr Says” Online
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5R62TiRNi00
“They’ve got a good shot,” Peters said in an interview. “Certainly right now they’re in striking distance and they’ve got plenty of time left in the session.”¶
Ending the travel ban may lead as many as 1 million Americans to visit the island every year, Lisa Simon, president of the National
Tour Association, known as NTA, said in an interview. It would also help push forward talks on human rights issues, Thale said.¶ “We’ve
had a policy for 50 years of isolating Cuba and it hasn’t done anything about the human rights situation, ” Thale said. “I don’t think there
is some magic solution. I don’t think ending the travel ban will cause Fidel to say let’s have elections, let’s release all the
political prisoners tomorrow. What it will do is open the process of dialogue.”¶ Obama’s administration has been
showing a “gradual relaxation and diplomatic opening” toward Cuba, Thale said. He cited the government’s decision to reinitiate talks on
migration and direct mail, and also to put down the billboard operated by the U.S. government outside its special interests section in Havana, which he said
often displayed anti-Cuba messages.
Plan solves human rights
CSG ’08 (Cuba Study Group, a non-profit, non-partisan organization comprised of business and community leaders of
Cuban descent who share a common interest and vision of a free and democratic Cuba. “Lifting Restrictions on
Travel and Remittances to Cuba: A Case for Unilateral Action”, Pg. 3, December 10, 2008.
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7e4643ab-af81-4a8c-9872-5ab497a76617 )
The Cuban regime is responsible for the deep division of the Cuban nation and the separation of Cuban families. ¶
The Cuban revolutionary process has divided Cuban families— not only politically and ideologically, but also ¶
geographically. More than one million Cubans are currently spread throughout the world. Another 11 million ¶
Cubans still living on the island are subjected to regulations and, in some cases, fees in hard currency to travel ¶
abroad. The Cuban government also penalizes Cubans who choose to emigrate or live abroad with harsh ¶
measures, including fines, property confiscation, the forced loss of employment and even visa requirements for ¶
its own citizens to re-enter their country.¶ In addition, since the U.S. dollar is no longer legally accepted as a form
of currency within Cuba, the Cuban ¶ government imposes a 20 percent tax to convert U.S. dollars to the Cuban
Convertible Peso; this is a ¶ substantial burden on Cuban families that receive remittances from abroad. More
recently, the regime has ¶ instituted policies that restrict the receipt of remittances by democracy advocates to
those sent by members of ¶ their immediate family, in an effort to deny resources to the island’s pro-democracy
movement.9¶ These are the policies of an authoritarian regime that systematically violates human rights and
international ¶ conventions. While the Cuba Study Group emphatically condemns these policies and will continue
to call upon ¶ the Cuban government to eliminate them, we recognize that as Cuban-American exiles, our ability to
pressure ¶ the Cuban government to change is extremely limited. As U.S. citizens, however, we have a right and an
¶ obligation to demand the respect of our rights and to press our government for more ethical, effective and ¶
humane policies.
Canadian Agriculture
Removing the travel ban increases competition from Canadian companies, specifically those
invested in the Canadian Agriculture industry
Spadoni, assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Augusta State University, and Sagebien,
associate professor at the School of Business Administration and an adjunct professor in the International
Development Studies program in the College of Sustainability at Dalhousie University in Halifax, 12/19/2012
(Paolo and Julia, “Will They Still Love Us Tomorrow? Canada-Cuba Business Relations and the End of the US
Embargo,” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tie.21524/full)
The potential lifting of the travel ban for all U.S. citizens deserves a special mention. Some
US studies estimated that between 550,000 and 1.1
million Americans would visit Cuba in the short-run if travel restrictions were abolished and more than 3 million would go there
annually once the market has fully adjusted (Robyn, Reitzes, & Church, 2002; Sanders & Long, 2002; USITC, 2007). With the infusion of cash from American
visitors and no competition from US investors yet, the time between the end of the travel ban and the complete lifting of the
embargo will establish a rather unique scenario in Cuba with good opportunities for Canadian firms on the whole. Established players, in
particular, could move quickly to take advantage of changing conditions. Obviously, a flood of US tourists will probably lead to a reduction in
the number of Canadian and European visitors (Romeu, 2008), some of whom like to go to Cuba because there are very
few Americans. Nevertheless, travel agents and airlines from Canada and other countries could easily move people to
other destinations once the Americans come in. Besides the need for more food imports, the Castro government will face
tremendous pressure to improve tourism facilities and, in general, all kinds of infrastructures to make sure that
Cuban consumers would not suffer from extra demand diverted to hotels and tourism enclaves. This will require
some additional foreign investment. According to Cuban officials, the island would have to roughly double its hotel room capacity and build more than 40,000
new units to accommodate 3 million US tourists. But it took Cuba almost 20 years to build that capacity.21 ¶ Although the presence of Canadian equity
investors in new hotels could remain limited due to their exposure to the US market and potential problems with
the Helms-Burton law , the participation of Canadian firms in many tourism-related areas and other sectors could
expand significantly. Curiously, there are no Canadian hotel management contracts on the island at the moment
despite the fact that Canada is Cuba's main source of international tourists. Moreover, Cuba has never been self-sufficient on food due to
its heavy reliance on sugar, and it is doubtful that it could substitute most food imports. Thus, the island will likely continue to import large amounts
of agricultural products, especially if the travel ban is removed and at least an extra 1 million US visitors must be
fed with quality food. Given the good reputation of its products, Canada should be able to reap substantial
benefits.¶ Mainly prompted by economic considerations going beyond a simple predilection for Canadian suppliers, the most noticeable feature of
Canada-Cuba commercial relations is that trade tends to follow investment. Indeed, a sizable share of Canadian
exports to the island target sectors that have attracted major Canadian investments, above all basic industries where Sheritt has
large operations. Between 2001 and 2010, Canada sold to Cuba equipment and machinery for oil, gas, and mining worth more than $270 million. An expansion of joint
venture deals with Cuban companies would therefore be beneficial for Canadian business, but this is unlikely to occur in the
medium term since the Castro government continues to prefer investment projects involving Venezuelan and, to a lower extent, Chinese and a few other partners.¶ In general, the
more holes in the US embargo against Cuba the more competition there is for Canada, but also more
opportunities. Canadian investors, especially those with a foothold in the Cuban economy, will be well positioned to reap benefits from
the removal of the travel ban and the need to upgrade infrastructures on the island. The dramatic growth of American
tourists in Cuba should increase business for Canadian food exporters even if less stringent rules on US food sales to Havana are implemented.
Exempting oil from embargo provisions will foster US participation in Cuban fields, yet it will open the US market to all companies involved. As noted before, a bigger
challenge for Canada is to find ways to gain from Cuba's economic strategies that tend to favor investment and trade relations with
Venezuela and China. Just to cite one example, the expansion of medical cooperation programs between Cuba and Venezuela after
2004 significantly boosted Canadian exports of medical devices to the island. Canada's sales of optical instruments to Cuba increased from $4.7 million in
2004 to $17.2 million in 2008. Canadian firms also sold to Cuba surgical and dental furniture worth $3.4 million in 2006.
Exports key to Canadian agriculture; especially with emerging market economies
Farm Credit Canada 13. Canada's largest agricultural term lender. This organization's purpose is to enhance rural Canada by providing specialized and personalized
financial services to farming operations, including family farms. “Canadian agriculture and agri-food in the global economy” Online
http://www.fcc-fac.ca/en/LearningCentre/CAGE/cage_report_e.asp 2013
Canada is renowned around the world for producing safe, high-quality agriculture (crop and animal) and agri-food (food and beverage
manufacturing) products. Canada must remain competitive with other exporting nations, while continuing to expand
market opportunities. This document explores the current agriculture and economic issues in relevant countries
and interprets the implications for the agriculture and agri-food industries in Canada.¶ Countries covered in this analysis
represent either existing export markets, emerging opportunities or major competitors to Canada. These countries include Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries: Australia, the EU, Japan, Mexico, the U.S. and BRIC countries: Brazil, Russia, India and China.¶ Key findings:w¶ 1.
The agriculture economy in Canada is heavily reliant on the export market, as exports accounted for 58 per cent
of the agriculture gross domestic product (GDP), as compared to 34 per cent for the entire economy. Growth expectations in emerging markets
are higher than in developed nations for 2013. The importance of emerging market economies for Canadian exports continues
to increase.¶ 2. Agriculture commodities are highly substitutable; therefore, it’s difficult to differentiate Canadian commodity
exports from other developed nations with similar food safety standards (Australian, European Union and U.S.).¶ 3. Canadian
agriculture will continue to benefit from creating new and expanding existing trade relationships.
exposure to the struggling U.S. economy.
This will limit trade
Emerging market economies1 present an opportunity for Canada since they are
expected to grow faster than developed nations.¶ 1 Emerging market economies are defined as those economies
in the low- to middle-income category that are advancing rapidly and are integrating with global capital and
product markets.
Canadian ag industry is key to sustainable practices and the global economy
AAFC 13 (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, “We Grow a Lot More Than You May Think”,
http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/about-us/publications/we-grow-a-lot-more-than-you-may-think/?id=1251899760841,
2013-07-17, accessed 7/18/2013, //Evan)
Ag Facts Why is the agriculture and agri-food sector so important?
It's a colossal contributor to the lives of all Canadians. It feeds us,
as well as our economy. It employs us, and depends upon the environmental stewardship of our farmers. It is fuelled
by innovation and ingenuity. In short, it grows a lot more than you may think! The agriculture and agri-food industry contributes $100
billion annually to Canada's gross domestic product (GDP). (That's more than the national GDP of 2/3 of the world's countries). No
Wonder the Tomato Wears a Crown Red Tomato Why agriculture is a big deal. What makes agriculture king? Canada is the 5th largest
agricultural exporter in the world, and the agriculture and agri-food industry employs 2.1 million Canadians (that's
1 in 8 jobs). We produce about 85% of the world's maple syrup, and we're the world's largest producer and exporter of flax seed, canola, pulses and durum
wheat. This Kidney Bean is Counting the Ways Agriculture is Amazing Red Kidney Bean Agriculture's hidden marvels. Think agriculture only produces things that
you eat? Think again! Did you know the airbag in your car contains cornstarch? That diabetic test strips contain an enzyme found in horseradish? Or that some
shampoo and skin care products contain oats? The list goes on! Agriculture also has a major impact on the economy. Canola - now the oil
of choice for millions around the world - was developed by Canadian scientists and planted by Canadian farmers. Today, Canada contributes nearly 40% to
global canola imports. No Wonder our Beef Gets All Dressed Up Hamburger Agriculture's meaty contributions. There are approximately 4 million beef cows in
Canada. In addition, roughly 26 million pigs are raised in Canada each year, making us the world's third-largest exporter of pork products. About Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) As you might expect, AAFC helps farmers and industry feed our country, but this is just the tip of the iceberg lettuce! We are working
to grow Canada's exports, while providing leadership in the growth and development of a competitive, innovative and sustainable Canadian agriculture and agrifood industry. We
Help Farmers Stay Ahead green cabbage AAFC programs help farmers maximize long-term
profitability and competitiveness, in markets in Canada and abroad. Our programs help Canadian producers and processors adapt to
changes in consumer demand, shifts in global competition, and production challenges caused by severe weather, disease or trade actions. We also work with
other federal departments and agencies, provincial and territorial governments, and industry to deliver programs and services. We Have the Cream of the Crop
Cup of cream Through its science and research, AAFC has stimulated innovation in the farming sector for over 125 years. With our partners, we tackle new
challenges every day, such as researching new ways to fight disease; improving crop varieties and yields; and ensuring that our food products are healthy, safe
and of high quality. We Help Keep Things Green sprouting bean Clean air, soil and water are everyone's priority. Building
on the tradition of
Canadian farmers as stewards of the land, AAFC continues to invest in science and work with farmers to ensure
that Canada's food comes from sustainable farming practices. AAFC's vision is focused on driving innovation and
ingenuity to build a world-leading agricultural and food economy for the benefit of all Canadians.
***IMPACT Disease
Lifting the travel ban is key to collaboration to solve diseases
Discovery News ’13 (Discovery News. Feb 11, 2013, “Cuba Help Fight Tropical Diseases Dengue
Fever” http://news.discovery.com/human/cuba-help-fight-tropical-diseases-dengue-fever.htm )
When it comes to issues like the spread of infectious disease, increased collaboration with Cuba may just be good
medicine.U.S. scientists and doctors are looking to Cuba for help with infectious diseases.¶ Cuban scientists are
experts on diseases like dengue fever, which has become more common in the U.S.¶ Political relations with the
Communist country and recent shakeups in Congress may stand in the way of cross-country collaboration.¶ In the
wake of this month's Republican electoral shakeup in Congress, talk of lifting the U.S. travel ban to Communist
Cuba is pretty much off the table. But President Barack Obama still has the executive power to ease the amount of
red tape faced by U.S. medical researchers who can travel to the island.¶ For some, such a move might awaken fears
of radical socialism, but others say when it comes to issues like the spread of tropical and infectious disease from
global warming, increased collaboration with a neighbor is just good medicine.¶ "I think because of climate
change, because some of these infectious diseases are coming through in epic forms, collaboration between all
countries is more needed than ever," said Gail A. Reed, the International Director of MEDICC, an American nonprofit organization working to enhance global health cooperation with Cuba.¶ Hepatitis, chikungunya, bird flu and
H1N1 are all diseases that concern U.S. epidemiologists. But dengue fever, the most common of mosquito-born
illnesses, is one of the biggest. This summer, the Centers for Disease Control reported that five percent of residents
in Key West, Fla. had been exposed to the deadly virus.¶ Dengue was eradicated in the United States in the 1940s,
with just a few cases creeping across the U.S.-Mexico border in the 1980s. It is endemic to most of the Caribbean,
but not to Cuba. In fact, strong research and preventative measures have won Havana's Pedro Kouri Cuban
Tropical Medicine Institute special status as a World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Dengue Study
and Control.¶ "In that sense, U.S. scientists are very interested in collaborating with Cuba because they have a
history of investigations and successful research not only into the impact but the viral origins," Reed said.¶ That
interest dates to before the 1959 Cuban Revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power. In 1889, the American Public
Health Association requested that the United States government annex Cuba from Spain to protect Americans from
Yellow Fever.¶ Panic over the disease helped fuel the 1898 Spanish American War, says Pedro Orduñez, a Cuban
doctor who has published extensively on U.S.-Cuba medical research in both Washington and Havana.¶ "Health in
Cuba is the icon of the revolution," noted Orduñez, explaining that Cuba's invention of a broad-based primary care
system helped it assert its sovereign identity.¶ That faltered during the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba's
main economic backer. Thousands of Cuban rafters set sail for Florida, and many of the Cubans who remained began
to suffer epidemics such as optic neuropathy, a temporary blindness associated with certain nutritional
deficiencies.¶ As a result, the U.S. government loosened some U.S. travel and trade restrictions on humanitarian aid.
That, in turn, pried open collaborative doors a little further, allowing new organizations such as MEDICC to create
U.S.-Cuba medical exchanges. In 2001, Cuba offered full-ride scholarships for up to 500 U.S. students at its Latin
American Medical School, and the U.S. government obliged.¶ Dr. Sitembile Sales, a 2010 U.S. graduate of the Latin
American Medical School in Havana, is grateful both nations allowed her to access the Cuban government's medical
scholarship. She says it gave her invaluable training for crises and epidemics anywhere. During her third year of
medicine, she was thrown onto 24-hour hospital rounds for two dengue fever epidemics.¶ "There were meetings
with our professors saying this is war, we have an attack … there's no room for mistakes," she told Discovery News.
"The good thing is that people never dropped like flies because we never let them get to that point."¶ Obstacles still
abound. Sales needed a special student license to travel to Cuba, and a general license that allows American
professionals to conduct research there is not as general as it sounds.¶ Researchers must scrutinize every aspect of
their trip to make sure their spending and collaborative habits do not infringe upon U.S. sanctions. That means
knowing what research equipment they can carry without a separate license, how much money they can spend in
country and on what, how their work will be disseminated later, and under what specific contexts they can
collaborate with or learn from the Cuban people.¶ For example, researchers have to ask for a different license if
they plan to attend a Cuba-sponsored science conference or workshop, and in Cuba, most events are government
run. Obtaining a U.S. license for conferences or research equipment involves mounds of paperwork and an
answer can take months. Interest groups say these factors slow down the process of participating in projects that
would otherwise prove to be a quick and efficient way of obtaining important medical data or learning new methods
for curbing an epidemic.¶
***IMPACT***
2AC Answers To
Topicality
Conditional Engagement – 2AC
Lifting the travel ban alone is conditional engagement
Barrios, CEO of the American Red Cross of Eastern Massachusetts, Fall/Winter 2011
(Jarrett, “People First: The Cuban Travel Ban, Wet Foot-Dry Foot and Why the Executive Branch Can and Should Begin Normalizing Cuba Policy,” Connecticut
Public Interest Law Journal, 11 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 1)
The Administration can and should discontinue travel restrictions to the extent possible under TSREEA. In relevant
part, the 2000 law's codification of twelve classes of travel prohibits wholesale elimination of the travel ban.
Nonetheless, broad discretion remains to open up these categories to more US citizens desiring to travel to Cuba.
This discretion permits a substantial reduction in scope of this barrier to travel.¶ The authority of the executive
branch under TSREEA to define which groups are eligible within the extant twelve classes of licensees is substantial.
The OFAC regulation-changes that followed the announcement of President Barack Obama in January 2011
demonstrate the substantial powers reserved for the President's discretion. As part of these changes, Section
515.563 was amended to expand the specific license journalist category to permit freelance writers working on
"projects other than 'articles'." n132 This new language broadens substantially the types of persons who can travel
under this category. Anyone can be a freelance journalist; moreover, without the requirement that you have an
article to be published, there is no check on such applicants or requirement that they secure a publisher in advance,
thus allowing for individuals to characterize their travel as journalistic without the need to seriously demonstrate
such an endeavor before or after such travel. n133¶ Other categories lend themselves to such "broad"
interpretation, too. The new general license for religion, for example, permits "[r]eligious organizations located in
the United States, including members and staff of such organizations, to engage in the travel-related transactions"
n134 As [*27] with the journalist example above, this category could be broadened to include persons interested in
religion and religious subjects in Cuba, but not affiliated with a church in the United States. Under the logic of the
2000 TSREEA legislation, the category is preserved but widened to allow more participating members.¶ Also within
OFAC discretion is the decision of whether to require only general licenses in place of the more odious "specific
license." The specific license requires an application review and advance approval of travel by OFAC. By converting
all categories currently classified as specific licenses into general license categories-permissible under the 2000
legislation-more people could travel to Cuba with less direct government oversight, reducing the administrative
burden on the Treasury Department as well. n135¶ The legality of this approach was endorsed by the United States
General Accounting Office ("GAO") in a 2009 analysis for members of Congress. n136 In relevant part, the report
explains that the current laws still permit the President to authorize travel under the general license for travelers
currently required to apply for a specific license, including "for example, freelance journalists; professional
researchers undertaking research or professionals attending professional meetings and not qualifying for a general
license; and enrolled students and full-time employees of academic institutions participating in educational
activities." n137 Further, the GAO explains that the President could increase the permissible daily spending limit on
travelers visiting family in Cuba. n138¶ There are ample reasons why the President should open up travel to Cuba: it
supports the individual right to travel of U.S. citizens; it rejects the ethically questionable and controversial strategy
of resource denial to advance foreign policy objectives; efforts to isolate Cuba have retarded efforts to grow civil
society on the island; a majority of Cuban Americans now support such repeal; and it is not fair policy to promote in
the present political context. n139¶ It is time to try alternatives that resoundingly endorse and enact the stated goal
of supporting democracy on the island in a post-Cold War context. Travel by Americans with continued economic
sanctions [*28] represents the kind of "conditional engagement" that is best. The engagement that comes in the
form of people-to-people contacts represent the very best of bilateral relationships to support the growth of a
strong civil society, and-in the words of one advocacy group-"far outweigh whatever financial benefits the Cuban
regime may gain from the flow of people and resources." n140
CP
AT QPQ
QPQ Fails/Unilat Key
Perm – QPQ CP
Unilateral action key – solves credibility and democracy
CSG ’08 (Cuba Study Group, a non-profit, non-partisan organization comprised of business and community leaders of
Cuban descent who share a common interest and vision of a free and democratic Cuba. “Lifting Restrictions on
Travel and Remittances to Cuba: A Case for Unilateral Action”, Pg. 1-2, December 10, 2008.
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7e4643ab-af81-4a8c-9872-5ab497a76617 )
Current U.S. restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba are principally designed to deny income to the ¶ Castro
government with the hopes of furthering regime change. Not only has this strategy infringed on the ¶ rights of U.S.
persons, but it has also isolated the United States from the Cuban people and the international ¶ community.
Additionally, these policies have further isolated Cubans living on the island today from the world, ¶ the United
States and, in particular, from their own family and friends within the Cuban-American community. ¶ Policies that
restrict contact between Cubans on both sides of the Florida straits contribute to the division of ¶ Cuban families and
make necessary processes of national reconciliation more difficult. For these and other ¶ reasons, restrictions on
family travel and remittances enacted by the Bush administration in 2004 have proven ¶ unpopular within the
Cuban émigré community in the United States. A poll conducted in March 2007 by the ¶ Florida International
University demonstrated that 60.2 percent of Cuban-Americans support returning to the ¶ pre-2004 rules that
governed Cuban-American travel and remittances.1¶ Even more important, almost all leading ¶ democracy
advocates and civil society leaders in Cuba today—even those who have been most supportive ¶ of U.S policy in the
past—have asked the U.S. government to lift travel and remittance restrictions applied to ¶ Cuban-Americans.
Ultimately, families on and off the island are suffering the consequences of these measures. ¶ Perhaps even more
fundamentally, the 2004 restrictions on travel and remittances enacted by executive order ¶ of the President—in
addition to the restrictions in effect before—infringe on the rights of U.S. persons and ¶ their families. The U.S.
government does not restrict travel to any other country in the world, not even to those ¶ on the State
Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.2¶ regulate the rights of persons to visit their families. U.S. persons
can serve as meaningful ambassadors of U.S. ¶ values and culture. They can help empower civil society networks
by transferring technology, information and ¶ resources and can help dispel 50 years of Cuban government
propaganda aimed at vilifying the United States ¶ and its values. Therefore, the United States should unilaterally
remove travel and remittance restrictions on all ¶ U.S. persons and not only Cuban-Americans.
Cuba Study Group, non-profit and non-partisan organization studying Cuba, 2008
(“Lifting Restrictions on Travel and Remittances to Cuba: A Case for Unilateral Action,”
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7e4643ab-af81-4a8c-9872-5ab497a76617)
These views are consistent with the policy recommendations outlined in our 2006 white paper, “Enhancing US Policy
Toward Cuba.”20 We continue to believe that conditional engagement is an appropriate approach to many of the
issues that plague the bilateral relationship between the United States and Cuba (U.S. economic/ trade sanctions,
political and civil rights, etc.) However, in the case of travel and remittances, we believe the benefits accrued to the
Cuban people and Cuban civil society far outweigh whatever financial benefits the Cuban regime may gain from the
flow of people and resources. As such, we believe unilateral action is warranted. In light of the window of
opportunity that has opened in Cuba and the increased expectations for change among the Cuban people, the
United States must seize the upper hand and be proactive in expanding contact and exchange with Cuba. Failing to
do so will only further diminish the ability of the United States and the CubanAmerican community to constructively
influence change on the island.
Perm: Lift the travel ban unilaterally and condition other elements of the embargo – (not
severance or intrinsic: our plan leaves those sanctions in place to provide future leverage)
Cuba Study Group, non-profit and non-partisan organization studying Cuba, 2008
(“Lifting Restrictions on Travel and Remittances to Cuba: A Case for Unilateral Action,”
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7e4643ab-af81-4a8c-9872-5ab497a76617)
Nonetheless, we do not believe it is appropriate to unilaterally lift all sanctions at this time. For such fundamental
changes in U.S. policy, conditional engagement remains our preferred framework; that is, manifesting a
commitment to change aspects of these policies in exchange for meaningful, positive and long- lasting economic and
political changes in Cuba (as opposed to the current “all-or-nothing” approach, which requires Cuba to achieve a
variety of lofty goals before any policy changes can be made). With a long list of international trading partners, Cuba
may not be as desperate for access to the U.S. market as it once was. Nonetheless, the United States remains the
natural market for the Cuban economy, and the prospect of access remains an important carrot to be leveraged by
U.S. policymakers in the pursuit of incremental change on the island.
There is another way of looking at the dilemma. In our view, the amount of resources likely denied the Cuban
regime by restricting travel and remittances is minimal compared to the overall benefit of greater contact and
exchange for civil society development, national reconciliation, and other goals. As a result, unilateral action is
warranted. In contrast, the benefit accrued to the Cuban government from a wholesale removal of any number of
embargo provisions would not, in our view, bring enough collateral benefits to U.S. interests or the Cuban people to
warrant unilateral action without significant concessions from the Cuban regime.
NGO Fail
NGO’s alone fail – money becomes fungible, plan key to appropriate costs
(Cuba Study Group, a non-profit, non-partisan organization comprised of business and community leaders of Cuban
descent who share a common interest and vision of a free and democratic Cuba. “Lifting Restrictions on Travel and
Remittances to Cuba: A Case for Unilateral Action”, Pg. 6, December 10, 2008.
http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7e4643ab-af81-4a8c-9872-5ab497a76617 )
There is also a significant correlation between the degree of democratic success achieved after a transition and ¶
the strength of civil society and opposition groups on the ground.14 To promote the development of a strong, ¶
independent, civil society along with pro-democracy movements, international contacts and resources are ¶
essential. The trajectories of previous transitions from communism provide ample evidence of this fact. In those ¶
countries that underwent the most successful democratic transitions, the United States and other relevant ¶
Western nations actively promoted frequent exchanges among civil society organizations. In several cases, the ¶
impact of such deliberate and continual programs of exchange and contact was instrumental in strengthening ¶
internal opposition movements. The United States currently maintains several programs through the U.S. Agency
for International Development ¶ (USAID) and other agencies to support the growth of civil society and prodemocracy movements within ¶ Cuba, either through direct contact or the work of non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) with ties to Cuban ¶ activists. Recently, such programs have come under fire, because large
portions of the funds distributed to nongovernmental organizations are allocated to overhead and administrative
costs, and only small amounts actually ¶ reach Cuba.15¶ Leaving aside the accuracy of these critiques, those who
support such a “regulated” or “micro-managed” ¶ approach to civil society engagement have failed to recognize a
more fundamental reality. Political dissent ¶ within the countries that have transitioned from communism was much
broader than the scope of the visible ¶ pro-democracy or civil rights movement itself. Intellectuals, labor activists,
academics, artists, civil society ¶ organizations and even regime elements all played major roles in generating
pressure for change. Civil society ¶ must therefore be conceived in broad terms, and U.S. policy should promote
exchange at all levels of Cuban ¶ civil society. By deregulating and privatizing such exchanges, free travel can help
expand their depth and reach.
AT: Rollback
Obama will veto any changes made to the Cuban travel policy
Hostetler 11 , Sharon Hostetler is the Executive Director of Witness for Peace, an organization with 30 years of
experience leading delegations of U.S. citizens to Latin America. “Heading to Havana-Lifting of travel ban is good
policy” August, 4, 2011 (http://www.presspublications.com/opinionscolumns/173-guest-editorials/7422-heading-tohavana-lifting-of-travel-ban-is-good-policy)
When compared with the embargo as a whole, being granted the ability to travel with a pre-approved license may
seem like small potatoes. But it's no coincidence that some U.S. lawmakers are trying to tighten travel restrictions
for Cuban Americans, even as Witness for Peace and other organizations are planning expanded travel
opportunities. The Obama administration has threatened to veto any legislation that would reverse its changes to
Cuba travel policies.
AT: Hotel Capacity
Cuba increasing hotel capacity now – means no link to your solvency deficit
FNL 12 [Fox News Latino, Author of “Cuba to increase hotel capacity,”
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/05/09/cuba-to-increase-hotel-capacity/, Published May 9th, 2012.]
Cuba is intending to increase its hotel capacity on its offshore keys and islets to take advantage of the economic
opportunities offered by tourism , according to leaders in the sector attending the 32nd International Fitur Fair.¶
The most recently developed tourist destination in Cuba is Cayo Santa Maria, an islet offering sun and beaches off
the northern coast of central Villa Clara province, and it was selected to be the site of the fair that is attended by
tour operators, travel agents, airline representatives and associations and organizations in the sector.¶ Tourism
Minister Manuel Marrero emphasized the economic importance for the country of expanding development of the
keys and islands of all sizes off the Cuban mainland, according to a report on state-run television.
Agenda
Pop. w/ Lawmakers
Eliminating the travel ban is popular with key lawmakers/Removing it helps introduce
democratic reforms
AFP 9 American Foreign Press Association. November 18, 2009. “Key US lawmakers: 'Scrap' Cuba travel ban” . Cuba
Study Group Online. http://www.cubastudygroup.org/index.cfm/newsroom?ContentRecord_id=CB7A3154-86504148-A92D-60ED041F299A
WASHINGTON — The United
States should "scrap" a ban on its citizens travelling to Cuba, two key US lawmakers said
policy for hampering Washington's efforts to promote democratic reforms there. ¶ "US law lets American
citizens travel to any country on earth, friend or foe -- with one exception: Cuba. It's time for us to scrap this anachronistic ban, imposed
during one of the chilliest periods of the Cold War," said Republican Senator Richard Lugar and Democratic Congressman Howard
Tuesday, blaming the
Berman.
¶
Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Berman, who chairs the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, noted that legislation to overturn the ban has been introduced in both chambers of the US Congress. ¶ The
travel ban, imposed in the aftermath of the 1959 Cuban revolution that swept Fidel Castro to power, had hurt US
efforts to promote democratic reforms in the socialist-run island. ¶ The travel ban "has left Washington an isolated
bystander, watching events on the island unfold at a distance," they said, and "isolation from outside visitors only strengthens the
Castro regime." ¶ Ending the restrictions would allow US citizens, "who serve as ambassadors for the democratic
values we hold dear," visit the island and would "help break Havana's choke hold" on information, they said. ¶ It
would burnish the US image worldwide, but especially in Latin America "where the US embargo on Cuba remains a
centerpiece of anti-Washington grievances," the lawmakers wrote in the Miami Herald.
lawmakers charged that the
Pop. w/ Public
Removing the travel ban has a majority of public support
Doug Bandow 9 Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil liberties. He worked as special assistant to
President Reagan October 25, 2009 “New Poll Shows Support for Lifting Travel Ban to Cuba” Online http://www.cato.org/blog/new-poll-shows-support-liftingtravel-ban-cuba
Even Cuban-Americans appear to have turned against U.S. policy. Reports the Miami Herald:¶ A new poll of Cuban Americans shows a
strong majority
favor allowing all Americans to travel to the island, a major shift from a 2002 survey that showed only a minority supporting the change, the
Bendixen & Associates polling firm reported Tuesday.¶ Executive Vice President Fernand Amandi said he was surprised by the magnitude of the swing in just
seven years – from
46 percent in favor in 2002 to 59 percent in the Sept. 24-26 survey. Only 29 percent were opposed in the new
campaign to allow all Americans to travel to Cuba has become a key Washington
battleground this year for those who favor and oppose easing U.S. sanctions on the island. Permitting such travel would allow U.S.
tourists to visit Cuba. Only Cuban Americans are now allowed virtually unrestricted travel to the island.¶ At least three bills lifting all restrictions on
survey, compared to 47 percent in 2002.¶ …A
travel are now before Congress – two in the House and one in the Senate. While most analysts believe the House may well approve some version of the
measure, they say it will have little chance of gaining Senate approval because of opposition from Sen. Bob Menendez, a powerful Democrat.¶ One would think
that even the most rabid hawk could agree that a policy
which has failed for 50 years has … failed. There’s no guarantee that ending
a half century of failure, it makes sense to try something
economic sanctions would spur political liberalization in Cuba. But after
else.
PTX Link Turn
Lifting the embargo is popular with US citizens
Lexington Institute et al 9 (Center for Democracy in the Americas, the Latin America
Working Group, the New America Foundation, and Washington Office on Latin America, June 23, LIFTING THE TRAVEL BAN WILL STRENGTHEN U.S. INTERESTS
AND HELP THE CUBAN PEOPLE, http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/travel_talking_points.pdf)
A majority of Americans and Cuban Americans support unrestricted travel to Cuba for all. A recent Ipsos poll taken April 2327 finds that 67% of all Americans want the right to travel to Cuba, and 72% of respondents said it would have a
positive impact on the island. According to a Bendixen and Associates poll taken April 14-16 this year, twothirds (67%) of Cuban and
Cuban-American adults support the lifting of travel restrictions for all Americans so that they can also travel to
Cuba freely.
This can be tagged as many different things (no ptx lin, solvency etc.)
Tampa Tribune 13 Tampa Tribune June 18, 2013 Online “Ease travel restrictions to Cuba to boost freedom”
http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20130618/OPINION04/306180005/Ease-travel-restrictions-Cuba-boostfreedom
There is a
quick way for our nation to help overwhelm Cuba’s censorship and propaganda.¶ Simply allow Americans
— the most effective ambassadors for democracy and free enterprise —to travel more easily to Cuba.¶ Having more
Americans visit Cuba would almost surely boost capitalism in a country that is cautiously experimenting with property rights and private enterprise.¶
can be done without the political firefight of eliminating the
to Cuba.¶ We think
50-year-old Cuban
This
embargo , which greatly restricts trade and travel
the embargo no longer serves a useful purpose . Indeed, it gives the Cuban government a scapegoat for its failed
economic policies. As John Caulfield, chief of Mission of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, says, Cuba’s financial woes are a result of “Cuba’s choice of an
economic model.”¶ But eliminating the embargo or allowing unrestricted travel to Cuba will require congressional approval, a political challenge.¶ In contrast,
President Barack Obama by executive order can require general licenses be issued for all approved travel to Cuba.¶
Americans now can receive a visa to travel for such specific purposes as education and cultural studies. These trips must be guided by licensed travel services
that are required to follow a strict agenda.¶ Everything is tightly regulated by the Office of Foreign Assets Control to ensure there are no violations of the
sanctions against Cuba. (Cuban-Americans appropriately have no restrictions on traveling to visit family.)¶ The approval process for the specific visas can be
cumbersome and time-consuming. Obtaining general license is far less complicated, so
expanding its use would eliminate red tape and
diminish barriers to travel.¶ The Cold War is over and the Soviet Union is gone. Cuba remains an authoritarian state, but its grip seems to be slipping.
That control would be further eroded should Americans be allowed to spread the seeds of capitalism and freedom in a country whose people badly need them.
Other DAs
No Link/Non Unq
Obama relaxed restrictions in 2009, non-uniqueing disads
Chicago Tribune 9/14/2010
(“Fidel's second thoughts,” http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-09-14/opinion/ct-cuba-edit_1_travel-bancuban-americans-foreign-tourists)
Declaring the island off-limits to most Americans isn't hurting Cuba, which welcomed 2.4 million foreign tourists in 2009. But it's a
growing sore point with U.S. citizens, who are tired of being told they can't travel to the "terrorist" nation all
those Canadians are raving about.¶ Last year, President Barack Obama relaxed restrictions that kept Cuban Americans
from traveling freely to visit relatives on the island. The administration has signaled that it will likely go further, easing limits on
academic, religious, cultural, sports and educational trips -- but only after midterm elections and only on "purposeful
travel," which means no tourism.¶ The president can make those changes by executive order, but lifting the travel ban
entirely requires an act of Congress. There's a bill in play that would do so, along with eliminating a lot of senseless obstacles that
make agricultural commodities grown in, say, China more affordable than the ones grown in the U.S. Since 2000, it's been legal -- though difficult -- for American
farmers to do business with Cuba. Sales are conducted through third-country banks, for example, and payment is required upfront. This, too,
hurts us
more than it hurts Cuba.¶ What Congress ought to do, of course, is dump the whole economic embargo against
Cuba, speaking of things that have proven, over 50 long years, to not work. Polls show that a majority of Cuban-Americans now favor
lifting the embargo. But every attempt to bridge relations with Cuba is vehemently opposed by a handful of
lawmakers who answer to a handful of hard-line exiles.
A2: $ ---> Castro
Revenue gained will support the Cuban people—Not Castro
Griswold, ’05 [10/12/05, Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute,
“Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba”, http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/fourdecades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba]
the travel ban should be lifted . According to U.S. law, citizens can travel more or less freely to such “axis of evil” countries as Iran and North
Korea. But if Americans want to visit Cuba legally, they need to be a former president or some other well-connected
VIP or a Cuban American. Yes, more American dollars would end up in the coffers of the Cuban government, but dollars would also go to
private Cuban citizens. Philip Peters, a former State Department official in the Reagan administration and expert on Cuba, argues that American
tourists would boost the earnings of Cubans who rent rooms, drive taxis, sell art, and operate restaurants in their homes. Those dollars
would then find their way to the hundreds of freely priced farmer’s markets, to carpenters, repairmen, tutors,
food venders, and other entrepreneurs.
First,